Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jeet Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 May, 2024
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 16th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4598 OF 2024
Between:-
1. JEET CHATURVEDI S/O LATE SHRI ASHOK
CHATURVEDI AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
OCCUPATION FARMER R/O NEAR MISHRA
BANDHU KARYALAYA, DIXITPURA, P.S. CITY
KOTWALI JABALPUR PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
SUJI MOHALLA, DAMOHNAKA, P.S.
GOHALPUR, DISTRICT-JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ATUL ANAND AWASTHI WITH MS. RENU GUPTA -
ADVOCATE)
VS.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION RANGNATH NAGAR, KATNI
DISRICT - KATNI (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI AJEET RAWAT - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
This petition coming on for admission this day; the court passed the
following:-
ORDER
1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 21-03-2024 passed by IXth
Additional Sessions Judge, Katni, District-Katni (M.P.) in Session Trial
No.56/2023 whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 25/27 of the
Arms Act and sentenced for Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year and 06
months with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that on 31-01-2023, Assistant Sub
Inspector Yagyanarain Singh Police Station Rangnathnagar, District Katni
received an oral information that present appellant Jeet Chaturvedi who was
absconding in an offence registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jabalpur, is
present near Jartikuriya Masjid alongwith his accomplice Akash and he was
instructed to go with the staff of Cyber Cell Head Constable Prashant Kumar
and Constable Satendra Singh to arrest the appellant -Jeet Chaturvedi. On such
instruction, ASI Yagyanarain Singh called Cheetah 04 police personnel namely
constable Amit Singh (517), Constable Subham Singh Rajput (593) near
Jharatikuriya Mashjid and thereafter he called ASI of Property Escort Shri
Kaptan Singh. They all reached the house of Seema Kori situate behind
Jhartikuriya Masjid where after seeing the police, appellant/ accused Jeet
Chaturvedi and his accomplice Akash armed with pistol in their hands hide
themselves in nearby house and after extensive exercise, appellant Jeet
Chaturvedi was arrested. At the time of arrest, appellant was armed with fully
loaded pistol with three 7.65 mm live cartridges and he was instructing his
accomplice Akash to fire on the police personnel, on which Akash fired which
hit the earth. Thereafter, accused Akash was also arrested. On the basis of
aforesaid incident, Dehati Nalsi was registered at No.0/2022 under Section
353, 307/34 of IPC (Ex.P-12). Spot map was prepared. On the basis of Dehati
Nalshi, FIR was jotted down at Crime No.36/2023 for the offence punishable
under Sections 353, 307/34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act vide
Ex.P-40 at Police Station Rangnathnagar. Investigation was set at motion.
After completion of investigation and other necessary formalities including
recording of statements of the witnesses, Challan was filed and the case was
committed to the Sessions Court Katani for trial.
3. The trial Court framed the charges and proceeded with trial. Before the
trial Court, appellant abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. On behalf of
prosecution, 13 witnesses were examined and in defence, accused/appellant
has been examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. After recording of evidence;
ocular as well as documentary and hearing the submissions of counsel for the
parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section
27/27 of the Arms Act. Therefore, appellant is before this Court.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the Sessions
Court has not appreciated the evidence in correct perspective. The judgment
suffers from surmises and conjecture. Initially, appellant was tried for the
offence under Section 353, 357 and 34 of IPC alongwith Section 25/27 of the
Arms Act, but due to lack of evidence, he was acquitted for the charges of
Section 353,357 and 34 of IPC, therefore, it appears that appellant was falsely
implicated in the case. It is further submitted that prime prosecution witnesses
namely Seema Kori (PW-1), Sultana Yadav (PW-2), Prashant Kumar
Vishwakarma (PW-3) and Vakilan Bi (PW-4) and Head Constable Pushpraj
Singh (PW-5) and other witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution
and have not witnessed the involvement of the appellant in the alleged crime
and turned hostile. It is further submitted by counsel for the appellant that the
case of prosecution is based on concocted story because as per the prosecution
case, the instruction was received by Head Constable of Cyber Cell whereas it
ought to have been received by the local police. Appellant has been sentenced
for 01 year and 06 months (total 18 months) out of which he has already
undergone 14 months incarceration. Appellant bears no criminal record.
Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant submits that case of the
appellant may be considered for undergone and jail sentence of the appellant
may be reduced to the period already undergone by him by enhancing the fine
of amount as this Court deems fit.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the prayer and prayed
for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. In the case in hand, appellant is facing allegation under the Arms Act.
Appellant Jeet Chaturvedi who was an absconder in another case and when
police personnel tried to arrest him, he alongwith his accomplice Akash tried
to threaten the police personnel by firing. The pistol recovered from
possession of the appellant was loaded with live cartridges. The government
witnesses remained firm to their statements however, other witnesses did not
support the story of the prosecution but the fact remains that the appellant was
arrested on the spot with fully loaded pistol. In this regard, PW-4, PW-6,
PW-9 to 13 have deposed against the appellant as well as the FSL report Ex-
P/48 proves the incident as according to it, a bullet was fired in latest from the
said pistol recovered from the possession of the appellant and five live
cartridges were also loaded in the said weapon. The aforesaid FSL report was
obtained in pursuance to the order of District Magistrate, Katani purportedly
under Section 39 of the Arms Act vide Ex-P/29. Hence, occurrence of the
incident cannot be denied and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the
prosecution. Therefore, the trial Court has not committed any error while
passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against
the appellant.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Prakashan Vs.
P.K.Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 and T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 held that if two views are possible and one view is
taken by the trial Court after due appreciation of evidence then unless sheer
perversity or illegality crept in to the judgment of trial Court, the scope of
interference is limited.
9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant
alternatively prayed that out of total 18 months sentence, he has already
undergone 16 months (since 31.1.2023) therefore, his case may be considered
for undergone, for which he is ready to pay compensation amount at higher
side.
10. In the case in hand, petitioner/ revisionist is facing incarnation because
trial Court convicted him and appellate Court affirmed his conviction and jail
sentence. Section 25 (1B)(a) of Arms Act stipulates punishment not less than
two years meaning thereby that minimum sentence has been prescribed but at
the same time, proviso has been added in the provisions itself which gives the
discretion to the Court whereby for any adequate and special reason to be
recorded in the judgment sentence can be imposed for a term of less than one
year. This aspect has been dealt with by the Ho'ble Apex Court in the case of
Mohd. Hashim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2017) 2 SCC 198
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the import of different
provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as the
"Offenders Act") vis a vis principle of minimum sentence has held that if the
minimum sentence is provided with discretion to the Court to award less than
that minimum for adequate and special reason then it is the power of the Court
to reduce the sentence.
11. On close scrutiny, looking to the nature of allegations and period of
sentence already suffered, this criminal appeal preferred by the appellant
stands disposed of while maintaining the conviction recorded by the Court
below and jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to period already undergone
by him but fine of Rs.1,000/- which has been imposed by the trial Court
deserves to be enhanced and it is directed that appellant shall pay additional
fine amount of Rs.1,000/- (in addition to the fine imposed by the Court
below) while giving undertaking before the trial Court that if he failed to pay
additional fine of Rs.1,000/-, then trial Court would proceed against him to
serve remaining part of jail sentence. Thus, if appellant do not deposit the
amount as directed by this Court within the stipulated time then he shall have
to serve the remaining jail sentence, for which the Court below sentenced him.
It is made clear that this benefit of undergone has been given to the appellant
in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where appellant suffered almost
14 months' incarceration out of 18 months.
12. With the aforesaid direction, the criminal appeal stands disposed of.
13. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and
necessary compliance.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA 7
2024.06.01
18:04:21 +05'30'
vc
