Jharkhand High Court
Danial Paul vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 February, 2023
Cr. Revision No.365 of 2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 365 of 2016
Danial Paul ... ... Petitioner
- Versus -
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-----
For the Petitioner : M/s. Kismanti Minz, Advocate
For the State : M/s. A. K. Dey, A.P.P.
-----
C.A.V. on 30.01.2023 Pronounced on 27.02.2023
1. Heard the Parties.
2. This application is being disposed of at the stage of admission
itself.
3. The petitioner has filed this application against the judgment
dated 04.01.2016, passed by Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, learned
Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa as his lordship was
then, whereby and wherein the learned Appellate Court partly
allowed the aforesaid appeal, affirming the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence passed by Sri Rama Kant Mishra, learned
C.J.M., West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in connection with Sadar P.S.
Case No. 39 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 254 of 2014 under
sections 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act. However, the learned Appellate
Court acquitted the petitioner for the offence under section 26 of the
Arms Act.
4. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of self
statement of the informant, Anil Kumar Singh, Officer-in-charge of
Sadar P.S. at Chaibasa, alleging therein that on 25.04.2014, between
06:50 to 07:00 P.M., on the basis of confidential information he
apprehended the petitioner, namely, Danial Paul, and on search a
loaded country made pistol alongwith a live cartridge of .315 bore
was recovered from his possession.
5. On the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary on the
record, the learned court below held the petitioner guilty and
Cr. Revision No.365 of 2016
sentenced him accordingly.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court, petitioner
filed an appeal before learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at
Chaibasa, vide Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2015. The learned court
below set aside the conviction of the petitioner under section 26 of
the Arms Act but affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence of the petitioner under section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act.
7. Atikur Rehman Khan (P.W.1), Dilip Kumar Baski (P.W.2),
Pankaj Kumar (P.W.3), Sudhir Kumar (P.W.7) were the members of
the raiding party. They all have stated that on 25.04.2014, at about
06:50 P.M., on the basis of confidential information the police party
went to J.M.P. Chowk and apprehended the petitioner and on
search, a loaded country made pistol and a live cartridge was
recovered from his possession.
8. Anil Kumar Singh (P.W.4), is the informant of this case. He has
supported the case as made out in his self statement, he has also
stated that on 25.04.2014, at about 06:00 P.M., on the basis of
confidential information the police party went to J.M.P. Chowk and
apprehended the petitioner and on search a loaded country made
pistol and a live cartridge was recovered from his possession. He
has proved the seizure list which is Ext.-1. From the perusal of
seizure list it is apparent that a loaded country made pistol was
recovered from the possession of this petitioner alongwith a live
cartridge of .315 bore. On 25.04.2014, at about 07:00 P.M., a copy
of the same was handed over to the petitioner.
9. Alok Hembrom (P.W.9) is the ballistic expert, he had examined
the recovered firearm. He has stated that on 10.05.2014, he had
examined the recovered firearm and it was found to be effective. He
has proved his report which is Ext.- 4.
10. From the perusal of the report of ballistic expert (P.W.9), it is
apparent that his statement in the court that the recovered firearms
were effective is corroborated by his report.
11. Sudam Say (P.W.8), is the investigating officer of this case, he
Cr. Revision No.365 of 2016
has proved the place of occurrence which is near J.M.P. Chowk, he
has given the perimeter and the place of occurrence. He has also
proved the sanction report which is Ext.- 5. On perusal of the
sanction report, Ext. 5, it appears that the Deputy Commissioner,
West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, has given sanction for the
prosecution of the petitioner under section 25(1-B)a and 26 of the
Arms Act.
12. The petitioner was rightly held guilty for the offences under
sections 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act. However, the sentence passed
by the learned trial court under section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act for
the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years
alongwith a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine to
further undergo imprisonment of 15 days is reduced to rigorous
imprisonment for two years for the offence under section 25(1-B)a
of the Arms Act alongwith a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of
payment of fine he is further directed to undergo imprisonment for
15 days. With this direction, this Criminal Revision Application is
Partly allowed with the modification of sentence.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Saurabh
