IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUBHASH CHAND, J.
Farid Ansari – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 41 of 2011
Decided On : 30-11-2023
Arms Act - Criminal Appeal - Sections 399, 402 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 399 and 402 of the I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act - The court critically appraised the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellant. The recovery of arms and ammunition was not proven, and there was no evidence of preparation for committing dacoity. The confessional statement of the accused was not admissible in evidence. The court referred to legal principles established in previous cases to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 399, 402 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act based on the prosecution's case of assembling for dacoity and possession of arms. The appellant appealed, arguing that the evidence was not properly appreciated, and the confessional statement was inadmissible.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to prove the charges against the appellant. The recovery of arms and ammunition was not adequately proven, and there was no evidence of preparation for committing dacoity. The confessional statement of the accused was deemed inadmissible.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to prove the charges against the appellant, the admissibility of the confessional statement, and the lack of evidence of preparation for committing dacoity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the critical appraisal of the evidence, the lack of proof regarding the recovery of arms and ammunition, and the absence of evidence of preparation for committing dacoity. Legal principles established in previous cases were also referenced to support the decision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, acquitted the appellant from the charges, and canceled the bail bonds.
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH CHAND, J.
1. Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant against impugned Judgment of Conviction dated 3rd September, 2010 and Order of Sentence dated 4th September, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. I, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No. 345 of 2007, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 399, 402 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Further the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this criminal appeal are that the informant-S.I. Sunil Kumar Tiwari, the then Officer-in-Charge of Petarbar police station had received the information on 3rd August, 2006 from some unknown person over the telephone that near Chargi valley under Petarbar police station about 8 to 10 persons armed with weapons had assembled with intent to commit some serious crime. Accordingly, he formed the raiding party and proceeded towards the indicated place along with two independent villagers, namely, Mahesh Mahto and Kunwar Mahto and found some persons hatching plan, who began to flee away having seen the police force. On chase five of them were apprehended at the spot and others managed to flee away. On search being made of the apprehended persons in presence of the two independent villagers, namely, Mahesh Mahto and Kunwar Mahto, a country made pistol having a cartridge of 315 bore in its chamber along with three more cartridges of same bore was recovered from the possession of Rafique @ Md. Alam. Similarly, one pistol loaded with 315 bore cartridges along with a Tata Indicom mobile, a pistol loaded with 315 bore cartridges along with two more live cartridges of the same bore were recovered from the exclusive possession of Ali Mohammad, Farid Ansari (the appellant herein), Somesh Goswami respectively. In addition to these, four live cartridges were also recovered from the possession of Ali Mohammad @ Md. Ali. Apart from those eight pouches of country made liquor, seven glasses, bundle of bidis, two match boxes, two daggers and a Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle having registration no. BR-13-B-5586 were also found there. All these apprehended five persons confessed their guilt disclosing that they had assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity and were making preparation for the same. No license could be produced by them of the seized arms and ammunition. The seizure memo was prepared and one copy of the same was supplied to arrested miscreants. Hence, this F.I.R. was lodged.
4. The Investigating Officer after having concluded the investigation filed charge-sheet against all the five accused and the Magistrate concerned took cognizance on the charge-sheet and committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions. The court of Sessions transferred the same to the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. I, Tenughat for trial. The trial court framed charge against the accused Farid Ansari alone for the offences under Sections 399 and 402 of the I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The charges were read over and explained to accused Farid Ansari, who denied the charges levelled against him and claimed for trial.
5. On behalf of the prosecution to prove the charges against the accused person in oral evidence examined PW-1 Hawaldar Ganga Ram, PW-2 Constable Ajay Kandulna, PW-3 Constable Girdhari Mahto, PW-4 S.I. Sunil Tiwari, PW-5 Constable Kailash Ramani, PW-6 Constable Manoj Kumar Rajak, PW-7 Cons
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient and admissible evidence to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving possession of arms a....
The prosecution must prove intent and preparation beyond reasonable doubt; mere presence armed does not constitute guilt without corroborative evidence.
The court established that the absence of independent witnesses and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can undermine the prosecution's case, particularly in criminal proceedings under the Arms Ac....
The main legal point established is the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for a test identification parade to strengthen the reliability of witness identification.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.