Doma Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1476 Jhar

                                            1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                               Cr. Revision No. 33 of 2012

                     Doma Munda                              ...   ...    Petitioner
                                         Versus
                     The State of Jharkhand          ...       ...        Opp. Party
                                         ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, Advocate

---

Through: Video Conferencing

06/23.03.2021

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey has argued his case.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned judgments has been submitted that the impugned judgments are perverse and are fit to be set-aside. He submits that although the learned lower appellate court has acquitted the petitioner for offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act, but the conviction under Section 25(1-b)a read with Section 35 of the Arms Act has been sustained by the learned lower appellate court.

3. The learned counsel has further submitted that so far as the seizure-list witnesses are concerned, they have not supported the prosecution case, in as much as, P.W.-4 (Sanjay Munda) had turned hostile and P.W.-1 (Sukhram Munda) though had admitted his signature on the seizure list, but has stated that he had put his signature in the police station. So far as P.W.-2 is concerned, he has also denied the occurrence, but he has proved his signature on the seizure list which were marked as Exhibit-1/2 and 1/3 respectively.

4. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel has further submitted that the present offence is the first offence of the petitioner and accordingly, the

petitioner should be given the benefit of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel has also submitted that the offence is of the year 2005 and much time has elapsed.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below and there is no scope for re- appreciation of evidence. He has also submitted that the official witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and they were also cross-examined fully by the defence. He has submitted that the learned lower appellate court has also considered the fact that due to fear, the local people do not come forward to give evidence against extremist people. He has also submitted that considering the seriousness of offence, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit under Section 360 of Cr.P.C.

6. Arguments concluded.

7. Order is reserved.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul