Jharkhand High Court
Afroj Ansari Son Of Sahaban Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 295 of 2012
Afroj Ansari son of Sahaban Ansari ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Prasad, Advocate
For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
06/07.04.2021 Heard Mr. D.K. Prasad, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Tarun Kumar, the learned A.P.P. appearing on
behalf of the Opposite Party-State.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that the main point involved in the present case is
that the recovery of the articles exhibited before the learned
trial court as material exhibits and their seizure from the
possession of the petitioner, have not been proved. He
submitted that apart from the aforesaid point, there are
material contradictions in the evidence of the various witnesses
particularly in connection with the time of the incident. He
further submitted that the independent seizure list witnesses of
the case have not been examined. Learned counsel referring to
the evidence of P.W.-1, who was a member of the raiding party,
submitted that P.W.-1 has stated that the arrest had taken place
at 10.30, but the arms were not sealed at the place of
occurrence. So far as P.W.-2 is concerned, he was also a member
of the raiding party and has stated that incident was after 01.30
and the seized arms were neither sealed at the time of seizure,
nor any identification mark was made on the seized arms.
P.W.-3 was also a member of the raiding party and he has
stated that the time of occurrence is after 12 noon. This witness
also stated that there was neither any identification mark on the
seized pistol, nor it was sealed. P.W.-4 is the Investigating
Officer of the case and has stated that he received the fire arms
in a sealed condition, though he did not mention it in the diary.
P.W.-5 is the Informant of the case and was a member of the
raiding party and had prepared the seizure list and exhibited
the seizure list as Exhibit-4. This witness also stated that neither
any identification mark was given on the seized fire-arms, nor
the same were sealed at the place of occurrence and the same
were kept in the same condition in Malkhana which was sent
for examination. P.W.-6 is Surendra Kumar who deposed that
the seized articles i.e. Material Exhibits-I and II were produced
by him in the court on the direction of the Officer-in-charge,
Mandar P.S. and on the country-made pistol, the case number
and Malkhana Register No.6 of 2005 are mentioned. He further
deposed that in the cartridge, Mandar P.S. Case No.11 of 2005 is
mentioned which was marked as Exhibit-II. This witness in his
cross-examination stated that case number on the pistol is not
legible and a paper is pasted on the cartridge and the same is in
unsealed condition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there
are not only contradictions in connection with the time of the
incident, but also the seizure of the articles produced in the
court, inasmuch as, the fire arms were neither sealed, nor
marked at the place of occurrence and the Investigating Officer
of the case had received the fire arms in sealed conditions.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the aforesaid
aspects of the matter have not been properly considered by the
learned courts below and accordingly, the petitioner is entitled
to benefit of doubt. He submitted that non-examination of the
seizure list witnesses before the learned court below, who are
certainly material witnesses, has seriously prejudiced the case
of the petitioner. He also submitted that the R.S.M. who
examined the seized fire-arms with regard their effectiveness
has also not been examined.
6. Learned counsel relied upon the judgments passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jasbir Singh Vs. State of
Punjab (AIR 1998 SC 1660) and Sahib Singh Vs. State of Punjab
(1997 Cr.L.J. 2978) and submitted that as the prosecution has
failed to establish the seizure of the fire-arms from the
possession of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to benefit
of doubt and this revision is fit to be allowed.
7. The learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite
Party-State, on the other hand, opposed the submissions made
on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that there are
concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned courts
below, which do not call for any interference by this Court in
revisional jurisdiction. He submitted that the contradictions in
connection with the time of the occurrence has duly been
considered by the learned courts below while deciding the case
and cannot be re-appreciated in revisional jurisdiction.
8. However, during the course of arguments, it has not been
disputed that all the witnesses are police officials and the
seizure list witnesses have not been examined and the members
of the raiding party, who were examined as witnesses, have
stated that the fire-arms seized from the possession of the
petitioner had neither any identification mark, nor they were
sealed at the place of occurrence and even during the trial, no
identification mark as such was seen in the material exhibits.
9. Argument concluded.
10. Judgment reserved.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
