Jharkhand High Court
Sikander Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 444 of 2006
---------
1. Sikander Singh
2. Mahadeo Mahto ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
---------
For the Petitioners : Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.
---------
03/18.08.2023
Heard the parties.
The petitioners have filed this criminal revision application
against the judgment dated 13.04.2006, passed by Sri Sanjit Kumar
Chowdhary, learned Additional District Judge-cum-F.T.C.-VIII,
Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No.126/2001, whereby and wherein, the
learned Additional District Judge-cum-F.T.C.-VIII, Hazaribagh,
dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 30.08.2001, passed by Sri Binod
Kumar Lal, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in G.R.
Case No.1541/1997 arising out of Giddi (Sadar) P.S. Case No.67 of
1997, holding the petitioners guilty of offences under Sections 25(1-
B)/35, 26(1)/35 of the Arms Act and thereby sentencing them to
undergo R.I. for two years for the offences under Section 25(1-B)/35 of
the Arms Act alongwith fine of Rs.500/- for each of the offences, in
default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo R.I. for
three months each and R.I. for one year for the offence under Section
26(1)/35 of the Arms Act. All the sentences were ordered to run-
concurrently.
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of self statement
of the informant Rajvanshi Singh, Officer In-charge of Giddi police
station, alleging therein that on 28.09.1997 at about 10:00 am, on the
basis of confidential information, the petitioners alongwith co-convict
were apprehended from Rallygardha Khatal and on search a loaded
pistol was recovered from possession of co-convict Md. Islam while
knife was recovered from petitioner no.2 Mahadeo Mahto and nothing
was recovered from possession of petitioner no.1 Sikander Singh.
In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and
documentary evidence. On the basis of the evidence available on the
record, both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate
Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the
petitioners.
From the perusal of statement of Rajvanshi Singh P.W. 1, it
transpires that he has supported the prosecution case and stated that a
place near Rallygardha Khatal was raided and three persons were
apprehended and a loaded country made pistol was recovered from the
possession of Md. Islam while knife was recovered from petitioner no.2
Mahadeo Mahto and nothing was recovered from possession of
petitioner no.1 Sikander Singh. In his cross-examination, he has
specifically stated at paragraph-11, that the seized firearms were not
sent to the ballistic expert for examination, to ascertain whether they
were in working condition or not.
From the aforesaid statement, it is apparent that recovered
country made pistol and cartridge were not sent for forensic
examination.
Mrs. Ruby Pandey, learned A.P.P. submitted that there is carbon
copy of the report of ballistic expert is on the record, which is Exhibit-4,
which shows that the recovered firearms were sent for its examination
to ballistic expert.
In view of the aforesaid contradictory evidence, it was incumbent
upon the prosecution to examine ballistic expert, to whom the firearms
were sent for examination. If at all the firearms were sent for
examination to ballistic expert the original report ought to have been
brought on record. The carbon copy of the report is the secondary piece
of evidence and the provision of Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act
was not complied in this case.
In view of the aforesaid fact, it is evident that the prosecution has
not been able to prove that the country made pistol and cartridge so
recovered from possession of co-convict Md. Islam was in working
condition.
In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that both the
learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to
a wrong finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners for offences under
Sections 25(1-B)/35, 26(1)/35 of the Arms Act.
This Criminal Revision Application is allowed. The judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below is
set aside.
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Jay/-
