Chhotu Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 65 Jhar

                                 -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   I.A. No.4015 of 2020
                          In
            Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.256 of 2020

    Chhotu Sao                              ......       Appellant

                             Versus
    The State of Jharkhand                  .....      Respondent
                             ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

---------

For the Appellant : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.

---------

               th
05/Dated: 06        January, 2021

I.A. No.4015 of 2020

1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of ad-interim bail, to the petitioner, during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The appellant/ petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 25(1-A)/35 and 26(2)/ 35 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six years and five years respectively, and to pay the fine of Rs.5,000/- on each count, and in default thereof, to suffer S.I of one year, vide judgment dated 20.02.2020, passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge - I, Simdega, in S.T. No.150 of 2015.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision in Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (1998) 8 SCC 525, and submitted that the Supreme Court has observed that if recovered and seized arms is not sealed, then it creates a doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution case.

It is argued that out of 17 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.Ws.-1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 12 and 13, who are the members of the raiding party, have not supported the prosecution case or named the appellant. The other witnesses have made contradictory statement regarding the time and manner of raid conducted at the house of the co-accused Deep Narayan Singh from where the appellant/

petitioner and other co-accused were arrested. It is submitted that P.W.-9 has stated that seized weapons were wrapped in a gamchha and taken to police station which is demonstrative of the fact that the arms were not sealed in accordance with law.

4. Learned A.P.P has opposed and submitted that the court below has considered and discussed the gamut of the case and the evidence on record. P.W.-9, P.W.-15, P.W.-16 and P.W.-17 have supported the factum of recovery and seizure of DBBL and cartridges from the possession of the appellant.

5. Heard. As per materials on record, a double barrel gun loaded with 02 live cartridges, and 23 live 12 bore cartridges in a black colour Bindolia were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. P.W.-8 and P.W.-9 have testified that the DBBL gun and cartridges were effective.

In view of the materials on record, I am not inclined to suspend the sentence and enlarge the appellant on bail, at this stage.

6. Accordingly, I.A. No.4015 of 2020 stands rejected.

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.) Chandan/-