Jharkhand High Court
Dharmendra Kumar S/O Sri Sita Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 October, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1071 of 2004
(Against the Judgment of conviction dated 29.06.2004 and order of sentence dated
30.06.2004 passed by learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court No.
IV, in S.T. No.569 of 2000 [arising out of Hatia P.S. Case No.50 of 2000 & G.R.
No.858 of 2000]).
1. Dharmendra Kumar S/o Sri Sita Ram, R/o Qt No-DT 1606, Dhurwa, P.S.
Hatia, District Ranchi
2. Rajesh Kumar Singh, S/o Nand Kishore Singh, R/o Qt No.-DT 1564
Dhurwa, P.S. Hatia, District Ranchi
3. Alok Kumar Srivastava S/o Sri C.P. Srivastava R/o Qt No.- DT 1652,
Dhurwa P.S. Hatia, Ranchi
4. Sanjay Kumar Singh @ Guddu S/o Sri Karu Singh, R/o Dhurwa, P.S.
Dhurwa, Ranchi. ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. .... .... Respondent
PRESENT
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Syed Ramiz Zafar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
.....
By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP for the State.
1. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against Judgment of conviction dated
29.06.2004 and order of sentence dated 30.06.2004 passed by learned Addl.
Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court No. IV, in S.T. No.569 of 2000
[arising out of Hatia P.S. Case No.50 of 2000 & G.R. No.858 of 2000]
whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to
undergo RI for 05 years for the offence under Section 399 of the IPC and 3
years for charges under Section 402 of the IPC. Both the sentences were
ordered to run concurrently.
2. As per the F.I.R., police conducted a raid on the basis of secret information
that some miscreants were making preparation to commit a cognizable
offence. In the said raid, the appellants were apprehended with arms and
ammunition. It is alleged that they were making preparation to commit dacoity
in a jewellery shop in the J.P. Market.
3. On the basis of the written report of the informant (Inspector cum Officer-in-
charge), Hatia P.S. Case No. 50 of 2000 was registered under Sections 399
and 420 of the IPC against all the four appellants.
4. Police on investigation submitted charge-sheet against them and cognizance
was taken and they were jointly put on trial for offence under Sections under
Sections 399 and 420 of the IPC.
5. In order to prove the case, altogether ten witnesses have been examined by
the prosecution who are P.W.1 to P.W.10 and seizure list and other documents
have been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibits.
6. The judgment of conviction and order sentence has been assailed by the
learned counsel for the appellant(s) on the ground that although it has been
alleged that they were making preparation for commission of dacoity and arms
were seized, but the appellants were not charged for any offence under the
Arms Act. The seized arms were neither produced nor the ballistic report
regarding those arms were brought on record.
7. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no evidence
that they were making preparation to commit dacoity. Although the said raid
conducted at night 12 O'clock, but the F.I.R had been lodged only on the next
day in the morning at 11 am.
8. It is also argued that the seizure list witness has not supported the case of
prosecution that any seizure was made in his presence.
9. Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence.
10. After having considered the submissions advanced on both sides, I find force
in the argument made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants that there are vital contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses,
although all of them are police witnesses. It has not been disclosed anywhere
that when the incidence was planned took place in pursuance of committing
the dacoity. The only evidence that has come is that these appellants were
apprehended at night. Although it is said that arms and ammunition were also
seized from them, but neither the appellants have charged for the offence
under Arms Act, nor any evidence to that effect was led during trial. Mere
arrest of persons at night cannot be a ground to hold that they were making
preparation to commit the offence. If there was any preparation, it should be
specific when and where the offence was planned to be executed. It is not
clear that what was the source of information, that the appellants were making
preparation to commit the offence.
11. Under the circumstance, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence is hereby set aside.
Criminal Appeal is allowed.
The sureties are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.
Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court
concerned at once.
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.
Dated 03.10.2024
Pawan
