The High Court of Jharkhand, while partly allowing a revision application filed against the judgment dated 17.06. 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide which the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were upheld, held that in order to prove the factum of recovery, it is sufficient for the prosecution to adduce the seizure list in evidence.
Brief Facts:
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the self-statement of the informant S.I. Arvind Kumar Choudhary alleging that on 29.08.1995 at about 02:00 A.M., he received confidential information that some miscreants were transporting catechu biscuits in a white ambassador car. On the basis of this information, an ambush was laid near Nagwa airport. The aforesaid vehicle was intercepted and about 2.40 quintals of catechu biscuits were found loaded on it. Both the petitioners were found travelling on the seized vehicle.
Both the learned trial court as well as the Learned appellate court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court had wrongly come to a finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners. They have not considered the fact that the prosecution has failed to examine the seizure witnesses. It was also submitted that neither the seized car nor the seized catechu biscuits were produced in the court during the trial and in the absence of any chemical examination report, it cannot be said that the contraband so recovered was catechu biscuits. On these grounds, it was prayed that this revision application be allowed.
Observations of the court:
The Court noted that the prosecution had not examined the seizure witnesses. Section 100 (5) of the Cr.P.C. provides that the search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses, but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it.
The decision of the Court:
The court, partly allowing the petition, held that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court holding the petitioners guilty of the offence under section 414 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed, with their sentence modified from two years to six months.
Case Title: Md. Reyazul & Anr. vs State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath
Case No.: Cr. Revision No. 1282 of 2016
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms. Rashmi Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Ashish Jha
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
