Umar Ansari @ Chiruwa vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1464 Jhar

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           Cr. Revision No. 964 of 2019
                                       ....

1. Umar Ansari @ Chiruwa

2. Liyakat Ansari ...... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ...... Opp. Party

-----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

-----

            For the Petitioners        : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate
            For the State              : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, APP
                                          ......

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

.....

07/11.04.2022 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he does not want to press Criminal Revision Application on merit against conviction and is submitting only on the point of sentence.

3. The present Criminal Revision has been filed for setting aside the judgment dated 08.02.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2017 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih has dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner and upheld the judgment and order dated 13.12.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in connection with G. R. No. 1132 of 2005 whereby the petitioners have been convicted for the offencs under Section 25 (1-B) a and 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years each and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Sections 25 (1-B) a of the Arms Act and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years each and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 26 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, they have been further sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month each. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the petitioner no. 1, Umar Ansari @ Chiruwa was in custody since 20.06.2005 to till 03.05.2006 i.e. for about nine (9) months and the Petitioner no. 2 Liyakat Ansari was in custody since 20.06.2005 till 07.10.2005 for about three (3) months and one pistol and one live cartridge were recovered from the possession of petitioner no. 1 and one Bhujali and two live cartridges were recovered from the possession of petitioner no. 2 while they were sleeping in their house and they were arrested by the police. It is submitted that seizure list witnesses had not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile. It is further submitted that the petitioner no. 1, Umar Ansari @ Chiruwa has remained in custody for about one (1) year and six (6) months and few days and the petitioner no. 2 Liyakat Ansari is in custody for about eleven (11) months. It is submitted that these petitioners have been sufficiently been punished and as they may be released by modifying the sentences imposed by the learned Court below.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed. However, learned A.P.P. has clearly submitted that he has filed counter affidavit in light of the order dated 27.10.2021 passed by this Court. It is submitted that as per the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, custody report of these petitioners have been enclosed, which will show that petitioner no. 1 is in custody for one year one month and 21 days and the petitioner no. 2 is in custody for six months and eight days before the trial and after disposal of the Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2017 on 08.02.2019, surrendered in the Court below on 07.09.2021 and since then, they are in jail and surrendered certificate has been filed on 29.09.2021 before this Court.

6. Perused the Lower Court Records and the impugned judgment and considered the submissions of both the sides.

7. It transpires that on 19.06.2005, while these petitioners were sleeping on cot, outside their house, then they were arrested by

the police and the petitioner no. 1, Umar Ansari was found in illegal possession of one country made pistol with .303 cartridge and the petitioner no. 2, Liyakat Ansari was found in illegal possession of two live bullet and one bhujali (dagger) 9 inches and they could not produce any documents.

8. It also transpires that during trial, prosecution had examined 17 witnesses and as has proved seizure list, FIR and arms with respect to pistol and cartridges. Ext.-5 is Bhujali. It transpires that P.W.-1, Kudrat Ali, P.W.-2, Shaukat Ali and P.W.-10, Kamishan Ansari had been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.-11, Jalaluddin Ansari and P.W.-15, Jainual Abaidin are the seizure list witnesses. However during cross-examination, they had not supported the recovery and had stated that they had signed on white paper given by the police and all the other witnesses are the police officials. The informant and I.O. have supported the allegation as it would appear from the submission by the learned counsel for the State.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer only on the point of sentence.

10. It transpires that petitioner no. 1 is in custody for one year one month and 21 days and the petitioner no. 2 is in custody for six months and eight days before the trial and after disposal of the Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2017 on 08.02.2019, surrendered in the Court below on 07.09.2021 and since then, they are in jail and surrendered certificate have been filed on 29.09.2021 before this Court.

11. In that view of the matter, the judgment dated 08.02.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2017 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih has rejected the Criminal Appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner and upheld the judgment and order dated 13.12.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in connection with G. R. No. 1132 of 2005 whereby the

petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 25 (1-B) a and 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Sections 25 (1-B) a of the Arms Act and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 26 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine further sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month each is modified to the extent that the sentence of the petitioner no. 1, Umar Ansari and the petitioner no. 2, Liyakat Ansari are reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them under Section 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act.

12. Thus, this Criminal Revision Application is dismissed and being disposed of with the modification in the sentences as indicated above.

13. The petitioner no. 1, Umar Ansari and the petitioner no. 2, Liyakat Ansari are directed to release forthwith, unless they are not wanted in connection with any other case.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Kamlesh/