Advocates:
['A K CHATURVEDI', '', 'K K MISHRA', 'SURAJ MOHAN', '', 'BHOLA NATH OJHA']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Revision No. 658 of 2003

---------

Ishwar Chandra Sahu @ Suraj Sahu ..… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

..... Opposite Party

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Amit Kr. Choubey, Advocate

For the State

: APP

---------

05/Dated: 24^th February, 2022

Heard through V.C.

2.

This instant criminal revision application is directed

against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2003 passed

by learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Cr. Appeal No. 45/98,

whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been

dismissed with modification in the period of sentence. The

petitioner has preferred the aforesaid appeal against the

judgment and order dated 20.07.98 passed by learned Sub-

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in G.R. No. 606 of

1992, whereunder the petitioner was found guilty and

convicted for the offence under Section 25 (a)/26 of the

Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for 3 years and 6 months.

3.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on getting

confidential information regarding absconding of the

accused of Ghaghra P.S. case No. 64/92, the police party

proceeded for to arrest the accused Suraj Kumar. The police

party reached Dy. S.P. Road and found Suraj Kumar

2

standing with another person. Both the persons were

arrested and search was made. On search a country made

loaded pistol was recovered from the possession of Kalyan

Kindo whereof seizure list was prepared.

4.

On the basis of the information by the informant who

himself was the Investigating Officer, a police case was

registered under Section 25 (a)/26 of the Arms Act.

5.

After investigation, charge-sheet were submitted and

charges were framed against this petitioner and one co-

accused. Both of them pleaded not guilty and were sent up

for trial.

6.

The learned trial Court in order to convict the

petitioner and the co-accused examined altogether 6

witnesses wherein P.W.1 was the Investigating Officer and

P.W.4 was the seizure list witness.

7.

Being aggrieved by the order of trial Court, both the

petitioners challenged the same before the learned Sessions

Judge, Gumla who vide common judgment sustained the

judgment

of

conviction

and

order

of

sentence.

Subsequently, the instant application has been preferred by

the petitioner.

8.

Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the instant application should be

allowed, inasmuch as, there are perversity in the impugned

judgment which has failed to see the non-compliance of

3

provisions as well as the evidence by the learned trial

Court. He further submits that the judgment of conviction

should be quashed and set aside on following grounds:-

(i)

As per the prosecution case P.W.1 who is also

the Investigating Officer has seized the alleged

weapon in front of P.W.4 who is the seizure list

witness. P.W.4 has denied his signature on the

seizure list.

(ii)

Ballistic report has not been produced in this

case to prove that the alleged weapon comes

under the definition of arms.

(iii) Sergeant Major has not been examined to prove

the effectiveness to the alleged seized weapon.

Learned counsel further submits that P.W.6 who in

his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. was present

at the time of seizure; has been declared hostile and as

such, the very seizure itself is doubtful in the instant case.

Relying upon the aforesaid grounds learned counsel

prays that the judgment of conviction and sentence may be

quashed and set aside.

9.

Learned A.P.P. opposes the contention of the

petitioner and submits that there are concurrent finding

and as such, no interference is required.

10.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

after going through the lower court record especially the

4

depo