The Patna High Court, while upholding conviction under the Arms Act reiterated that there is, however, no rule of law that the evidence of Police officials has to be discarded or that it suffers from some inherent infirmity and prudence, however, requires that the evidence of Police officials, who are interested in the outcome of the case needs to be carefully scrutinized and independently appreciated and the Police officials do not suffer from any disability to give evidence and the mere fact that they are Police officials does not by itself give rise to any doubt about their creditworthiness.
Brief Facts:
The present revision petition was filed against the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Sasaram, whereby the petition was convicted for committing an offence under Section 25 (1-B)A and 26 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 in default, simple imprisonment for three months.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that all the witnesses are Police Personnel and they are obviously interested in the outcome of the prosecution case and the prosecution has failed to establish the place of occurrence because one witness stated that the accused was apprehended in the orchard of Mango and Berry trees and another witness stated that he was apprehended inside the orchard of Mango and Guava trees. This discrepancy ought not to have been treated lightly by the Trial Court. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner also submits that the prosecution failed to examine any independent witness in support of the prosecution case.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the accused was apprehended at about 09.30 P.M. inside an orchard away from the village. The learned Judge in the Appellate Court rightly held that the place where the accused was apprehended was an isolated place and it was not possible to have an independent witness at the time and place of occurrence.
Observations of the Court:
The court first stated that the High Court can admit revision against conviction limited to the point of sentence only as the revisional jurisdiction is discretionary as that of the Supreme Court’s power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and then relying on the decision of the court in the case of Rabindra Nath Chaubey and Ors vs. Charai Chamar and Anr. stated that a Court exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot examine and scan the evidence on record as that of a Court of Appeal and further a Revisional Court may have the power to correct any error in the order passed by the learned Magistrate or the Court inferior to it, but it will be beyond its power and jurisdiction to reassess the evidence and on such reassessment to arrive at a finding which is at variance with the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate as well as the 1st Court of Appeal and an appraisal of evidence is not permissible in revision.
Further, the court stated that the high court while hearing revision does not work as an Appellate Court and will not re-appreciate the evidence unless some glaring feature is pointed out which may show that injustice has been done by improper appreciation of evidence. Further, the court referred to the decision in the case of Anil @ Andya Sadashiv Nandoskar vs. the State of Maharashtra, wherein it was held that there is, however, no rule of law that the evidence of Police officials has to be discarded or that it suffers from some inherent infirmity and prudence, however, requires that the evidence of Police officials, who are interested in the outcome of the case needs to be carefully scrutinized and independently appreciated and the Police officials do not suffer from any disability to give evidence and the mere fact that they are Police officials does not by itself give rise to any doubt about their creditworthiness.
The court stated that in the present case, there is nothing on record to show that Police personnel were hostile to the appellant and despite lengthy cross-examination, their evidence remained unshaken throughout have deposed in clear terms the details as to how the accused was apprehended. Their evidence regarding the search and seizure of the weapon and ammunition from the petitioner is straightforward, consistent and specific. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. The Investigating Officer obtained the sanction required under Section 35 of the Arms Act and Witness No. 1 proved the said sanction order.
The decision of the Court:
The court considering the nature of the offence, the long pendency of the case as well and incarceration for 2 years reduced the period of sentence from 3 years to the period which has already been undergone by him.
Case Title: Sunil Yadav @ Bhopu Yadav vs The State of Bihar
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Bibek Chaudhari
Case no.: CRIMINAL REVISION No.392 of 2019
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Bhaskar Shankar
Advocate for the Respondents: Md. Matloob Rab
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFZZr5OfftCnKzBqemUkTKbTPo1JbNZzSjRg&usqp=CAU
