Jharkhand High Court
Lankesh Kumar Singh @ Lankesh Kr. Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 5 January, 2024
Author: Ambuj Nath
Bench: Ambuj Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1398 of 2016
---------
Lankesh Kumar Singh @ Lankesh Kr. Singh ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. P. A. S. Pati, Advocate
: Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
---------
C.A.V. on 19.12.2023 Pronounced on 05.01.2024
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner Lankesh Kumar Singh @ Lankesh Kr. Singh
has filed this criminal revision application against the judgment dated
30.07.2016, passed by Sri Anuj Kumar, learned Additional Sessions
Judge-II, Saraikella in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2010, whereby and
wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Saraikella, dismissed
the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 16.03.2010, passed by Sri P. K. Upadhyay,
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella in G.R. Case No.86 of
2000, arising out of Adityapur (RIT) P.S. Case No.19 of 2000, 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
alongwith fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of
the Arms Act in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to
undergo imprisonment for four months. The learned trial court has
further sentenced the petitioner to undergo S.I. for six months alongwith
fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 26(1) of the Arms Act,
in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo
imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences were ordered to run-
concurrently.
3. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of self statement of
the informant namely Shiv Narayan Ram police officer posted at
Adityapur police station alleging therein that on 17.02.2000 at about
1:00 P.M., he received confidential information that the petitioner
Lankesh Kumar Singh @ Lankesh Kr. Singh has kept firearm in his
house. On the basis of this information house of Lankesh Kumar Singh
@ Lankesh Kr. Singh was raided and on search a country made gun of
twelve bore and four cartridges were recovered. The petitioner was
apprehended, he did not produce any documents to possess the
recovered firearm. Accordingly, this case was registered.
4. 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
petitioner.
5. From the perusal of oral testimony of the prosecution
witnesses, it transpires that Shiv Narayan Ram P.W.5 is the informant of
this case. He has supported the allegation as made out in his self report.
He has stated that on 17.02.2000 at about 1:00 P.M., he received
confidential information that the petitioner has kept firearm in his
house. On the basis of this information house of the petitioner was
raided. He was apprehended and on search a country made gun and four
live cartridges were recovered. He has proved the seizure list which is
Exhibit-1/2. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the petitioner
and his family members were present in the house at the time of raid.
He has admitted that the seized firearms were not sealed at the place of
occurrence. He has further stated that there was no material to seal the
recovered firearm so they were not sealed.
6. Tarun Kumar P.W.3 and Dipak Kumar P.W.4 were members of
the raiding party. They have supported the prosecution case and stated
that on 17.02.2000 at about 1:00 P.M., on the basis of confidential
information house of the petitioner was raided and on search a country
made gun and four live cartridges were recovered from there.
Tarun Kumar P.W.3 in his cross-examination, has stated that the
seized firearms were kept on the roof of the toilet. He has further stated
that he had not gone inside the toilet.
Dipak Kumar P.W.4, in his cross-examination, has stated that the
entire search and seizure took five minutes. At paragraph-12 he has
stated that the seized gun and cartridges were not sealed at the place of
occurrence.
Narendra Shankar P.W.6 is the investigating office of this case.
He has proved the place of occurrence which is house of the petitioner.
He has further proved the report of ballistic expert which is Exhibit 1/3.
He has further proved that sanction order which is Exhibit-1/4.
Vakil Singh P.W.1 and Anand Prakash P.W.2 are the seizure
witnesses, they have identified their signature on the seizure list, which
are Exhibit-1 series.
Vakil Singh P.W.1 in his cross-examination, has stated that he had
signed the seizure list in the police station after two days.
Anand Prakash P.W.2 has stated that nothing was recovered in his
presence.
7. From the perusal of the documentary evidence adduced by the
prosecution, it transpires that seizure list is Exhibit-1. From the perusal
of which it appears that twelve bore country made gun and four live
cartridges were recovered from house of this petitioner. The petitioner
has signed the seizure list.
8. The report of sergeant major is Exhibit1/3 which shows that
the recovered firearm was in working condition. Exhibit-1/4 is the
sanction order issued by the District Magistrate, West Singhbhum
Chaibasa for prosecution of the petitioner under Sections 25(1-B)
(a)/26(1) of the Arms Act.
9. Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that it is admitted case of the prosecution that the
firearm allegedly recovered from the house of the petitioner was not
sealed at the place of occurrence.
10. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Amarjit Singh vs State of Punjab as reported in 1995 Supp.
(3) SCC 217 :- wherein it was held that "non sealing of revolver at the
spot is a serious infirmity causing the possibility of tampering with the
weapon cannot be ruled out"
11. Reliance has also been placed upon a decision of this court
passed in Cr. Revision No. 696 of 2008. Nisar Ansari versus State of
Jharkhand:- wherein a single bench of this court relying upon the
judgment of Amarjeet Singh case (Supra) allowed the criminal revision
under section 25(1-B) (a) of the Arms Act as the seized firearms were
not sealed at the place of occurrence.
12. In the present case, it is admitted that the seized firearms were
not sealed at the place of occurrence. Accordingly, the whole factum of
recovery of firearm becomes doubtful. I am of the opinion that the
prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the petitioner for
the offence under sections 25(1-B) (a)/26(1) of the Arms Act.
13. Both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate
Court have come to an erroneous finding regarding the guilt of the
petitioner.
14. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by
the learned Trial Court so affirmed by the learned Appellate Court is set
aside.
15. This Criminal Revision Application is allowed.
16. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Jay/-
