The Patna High Court, while partly allowing a revision petition filed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31st August 2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, affirming the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26th May 2014, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-II, held that the trial court failed to assess the evidence properly and wrongly held the petitioners guilty for committing offense under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Brief Facts:
It was alleged that the accused Motilal Yadav had been trying to grab the property of the opposite party No. 2 by illegal means and he constructed a hut and claimed illegally his right over the share of the informant. The informant was compelled to initiate a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C., which was decided in his favor. On 8th February 2000, an unlawful assembly, armed with various deadly weapons, was digging a ditch on the land of the opposite party no. 2. Several shots were fired and the informant and his family members got injured. The learned trial Judge held the accused persons guilty of committing an offense under Sections 148/323 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The order of conviction and sentence was upheld by the 1st Court of Appeal. Hence, the revision petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to recover even a single cartridge from the place of occurrence. No blood-stained earth was collected from the place of occurrence. Therefore, the Investigating Officer failed to prove the place of occurrence where the alleged incident took place.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the petitioners are also agnates and co-sharers of the land belonging to the opposite party no. 2 and the petitioners and the question of possession over the land is the bone of contention of the incident. Therefore, there cannot be any ground to disbelieve the prosecution witnesses and there is no reason to interfere with the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and affirmed by the court of appeal.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that the petitioners cannot be convicted and sentenced under Section 27 of the Arms Act, in the absence of a firearm having not been recovered from the possession of any of the accused persons. The question of examination of a firearm by the expert does not arise at all because the firearm could not be recovered by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the trial court failed to assess the evidence properly and wrongly held the petitioners guilty of committing an offense under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
With regard to the charge under Sections 148/323 of the I.P.C., the Court said that the accused persons not only were charged under Section 323 of the I.P.C. but also under Section 324 of the I.P.C. The trial court was very well within its jurisdiction to hold the petitioners guilty of committing an offense under Sections 148/324 of the I.P.C.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, partly allowing the petition, held that the trial court is directed to pass a sentence under Sections 148/324 of the I.P.C. against the petitioners, after hearing the petitioners under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
Case Title: Moti Lal Yadav & Ors. v The State of Bihar & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuria
Case no.: CRIMINAL REVISION No.1213 of 2018
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Jagnnath Singh
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
