Jharkhand High Court
Arun Kumar Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 627 of 2011
Arun Kumar Mahto ... Petitioner
- Versus -
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
------
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-----
For Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party-State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P.
---
12/01.09.2023
Head the parties.
The petitioner has filed this revision application against the
judgment and order dated 04.07.2011, passed by Sri Uday Narayan
Mishra, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Khunti in Criminal
Appeal No.62 of 2010, whereby and wherein the learned Additional
Judicial Commissioner-I, Khunti, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner
and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
27.03.2010, passed by Sri Satya Prakash, learned S.D.J.M., Khunti in
G.R. No.23 of 2009 arising out of Torpa P.S. Case No.04 of 2009 holding
the petitioner guilty of offences under Sections 25(1-B)A & 26(1) of the
Arms Act and thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I. for two years each
of the aforesaid offences alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default
of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I. for three
months. All the sentences were ordered to run- concurrently.
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of self-statement of
the informant namely Digvijay Singh alleging therein that on 27.01.2009
at about 10:45 pm, he alongwith the police party intercepted a motorcycle
bearing registration No.JH01V-6037 near Sundari Bridge and
apprehended the petitioner. On search a loaded country made pistol was
recovered from his possession.
In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and
documentary evidence. Both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned
Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of
the petitioner.
Informant Digvijay Singh has been examined as P.W.7. He has
supported the allegation as made in his self-statement. He has stated that
on 27.01.2009 at about 10:45 pm, he had apprehended the petitioner near
Sundari Bridge and on search a loaded country made pistol was recovered
from his possession. He has proved the seizure list in evidence which was
marked as Exhibit-3. He has also proved the seized firearms alongwith
live cartridge, which were marked material Exhibit-I & II respectively.
Md. Basir Ansari P.W.1, Bimal Kumar Hembrum P.W.2, Ritu
Munda P.W.3, Pascal Indawar P.W.4, Amin Kindo P.W.5 and Md. Jasim
Khan P.W.8 have stated that they were members of the raiding party. They
have supported the case of the prosecution and stated that at the time of
occurrence the petitioner was apprehended by the police party and on
search a loaded country made pistol was recovered from his possession.
All these witnesses have been cross-examined at length, there is nothing
in their cross-examination to doubt their veracity.
Manoj Kumar P.W.10 is a ballistic expert, who has examined the
seized firearms. He has stated that seized pistol and live cartridge were in
working condition and he has identified his report which was earlier
marked as Exhibit-1. The prosecution has also proved the sanction order
for the prosecution of the petitioner issued by District Magistrate, Khunti,
which is Exhibit-2.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted
that Md. Jasim Khan P.W.8 has stated that the trigger of the seized pistol
was broken. He further submitted that Manoj Kumar P.W.10 has stated
that seized pistol did not contain a distinct mark and it was not produced
in sealed condition before him.
From the perusal of the oral testimony of these witnesses, it appears
that Md. Jasim Khan P.W.8 has stated that the trigger of the seized pistol
was welded, it further appears that none of the prosecution witnesses have
been cross-examined on the point that the seized firearm was not sealed at
the place of the occurrence.
From the perusal of the documentary evidence adduced by the
prosecution witness, it appears from the seizure list that the loaded
country made pistol was recovered from his possession on 27.01.2009.
Copy of the seizure list was also handed over to the petitioner. It further
appears from the perusal of report of ballistic expert, which is Exhibit-1
that seized firearms were in working condition. It also appears from the
sanction order, which is Exhibit-2 that the District Magistrate, Khunti has
granted sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid fact, it is apparent that the prosecution has
been able to prove its case against the petitioner that he possessed a
loaded country made pistol when he was apprehended while travelling on
his motorcycle from a public road.
Accordingly, I am of the opinion that both the learned Trial Court as
well as the learned Appellate Court has rightly held the petitioner of
offences under Sections 25(1-B)A & 26(1) of the Arms Act. The judgment
of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court does
not require any interference.
This Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.
Pending, I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Jay/-
