Jharkhand High Court
Somra Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.10 of 2011
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 14.12.2010 and order of sentence dated
16.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner FTC VI,
Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.640 of 1998 and 682 of 1998.]
----
Somra Oraon .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
With
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.105 of 2011
1. Krishna Oraon
2. Shyam Mahto .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Appellants : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Adv.
Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv.
Mrs. Priyanka Agrawal, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P.
Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.
----
By Court:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned APP.
2. The present appeals have been filed against the judgment of conviction
dated 14.12.2010 and order of sentence dated 16.12.2010 passed by the learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner FTC VI, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.640 of
1998 and 682 of 1998.
3. As per the prosecution story as disclosed in Chanho P.S. Case No.20 of
1998 that these appellants armed with country made pistol with live cartridges and
knife were preparing for commission of dacoity while they had been apprehended
by the police.. The incident is of the year 1998.
4. The police after investigation had filed charge-sheet and the trial court had
framed the charge under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and under
Sections 25(1-b)/26/35 of the Arms Act to which the appellants had pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be trial.
5. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether seven prosecution
witnesses had been examined. All the witnesses are the police personnel save and
except the P.W.-4 who is the seizure list witness but he has been declared hostile.
6. Argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that
they have been charged under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code
along with the Arms Act but they have been acquitted from the charges under the
Arms Act. Thus, the court had found that they were not armed and as such basis of
preparation of dacoity is false. Further, it has been submitted that the learned court
had failed to appreciate this basic fact that they were unarmed persons. The
witnesses of the police party are also contradictory as nobody had recognized these
appellants except P.W.-1. On the above basis the said judgment of conviction has
been challenged.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the
judgment.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the
record, it appears that although they had been charged for preparation of docaity
and possessing arms but they had been acquitted from the charges under the Arms
Act. Thus, they were unarmed persons. Further, the witness of the police is also
contradictory as nobody had recognized these appellants except P.W.-1.
9. In view of above facts, the judgment of conviction dated 14.12.2010 and
order of sentence dated 16.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner FTC VI, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.640 of 1998 and 682 of 1998
are, hereby, set aside. Since the appellants are already on bail, they are discharged
from the liability of the bail bonds.
10. Accordingly, the present criminal appeals are, hereby, disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
Dated 30th of November, 2022
Amar/NAFR/
