Jayant Kiro vs State of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard Mr. Arup Dey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party - State.

This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 10.12.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Simdega in Criminal

Appeal No.57 of 2013 whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.09.2013

passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in G.R. Case No.399 of 2012/T.R. No.121/2013 arising out of Bolba P.S. Case

No.13/2012 has been upheld.

The petitioner was convicted in the aforesaid G.R. Case No.399 of 2012 for offence under Section 25 (1-B) a/ 26 (1) and 35 of the Arms Act and

was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 ½ years with fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 25 (1-B) a of Arms Act

and further rigorous imprisonment of 2½ years with fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 26(1)/35 of the Arms Act with a

direction that both the sentences will run concurrently.

During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was arrested on the date of F.I.R i.e., on

13.09.2012 and throughout at the stage of trial as well as at the stage of appeal, the petitioner has remained in custody and was released by this Court

in revisional jurisdiction only vide order dated 10.01.2014. He submits that thereafter the petitioner must have taken some time to furnish his bail

bonds. He further submits that the petitioner has already remained in custody for one-year-four- months and at the relevant point of time on the date

of F.I.R, the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 25 (1-B) a of Arms Act was one year. The learned counsel has further submitted that

considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the sentence of the petitioner may be confined to the period already undergone by him in

custody.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party - State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that

there are concurrent finding of facts by the learned courts below not only on the point of conviction, but also on the point of sentence. He submits that

no interference is called for in the present case in revisional jurisdiction as there is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgments. He

also submits that the judgments passed by the learned courts below are well reasoned judgments.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that as per the prosecution case which is based on self-recorded statement of the

informant, who was officer-in- charge of the Bolba Police Station that on 13.09.2012 at about 10 a.m. he along with officer-in-charge T. Tangar and

other police force proceeded for raid against Pahari Cheeta in the different forest of the area and about 4 p.m. they reached in Sara Semar forest and

found two persons coming from the opposite direction. Seeing the police party, they started fleeing away, but one of them was apprehended on chase.

The apprehended person disclosed his name as Jayant Kiro (Petitioner) and also disclosed the name of his associate as Vijay Tete. It was further

stated that since the area was forest area and lonely place so in absence of any independent witness, two constables of the raiding party were made

witnesses and in their presence, the body of the petitioner was searched and a loaded country made pistol of .315 bore was recovered from his

possession and from right pocket of his full pant, one live cartridge of .315 bore was also recovered. On demand, the petitioner could not produce any

paper regarding the seized articles and thereafter, seizure list was prepared and the petitioner was arrested.

This Court finds that the prosecution examined altogether 7 witnesses amongst whom P.W.1 was the A.S.I, P.W.2 was the Sergeant Major, P.W.

3 was the Officer-in-charge of Bolba Police Station, the informant himself, P.W. 4 was also a police officer, P.W. 5 was A.S.I, P.W. 6 was the

Inspector Officer-in-charge of T. Tangar Police Station and P.W. 7 was the Investigating officer of the case.

The learned trial court after considering the entire evidences on record recorded its finding at para 12 and 13 of the judgment which reads as

follows:

On perusal of entire case record, it is obvious that all the witnesses who were the members of raiding party have clearly said that the above

named accused was caught with possession of a loaded country made pistol of .315 bore and a live cartridge which got strengthen from Ext.3, the

seizure list which copy was also given to the above named accused and in token of the same, he made his signature over it. It is also obvious that the

said country made pistol and the cartridges were found effective by the Sergeant Major P.W.2 and there is a report in this regard as Ext.1. The

Deputy Commissioner, Simdega has also sanctioned the prosecution of above named accused vide his sanction order (Ext.4). Moreover the

prosecution has also produced the said country made pistol and two live cartridges of .315 bore before the court and got the same marked as material

Ext. MI & MII respectively.

So far with regard to picking the above named accused from the jail gate is concerned, it is obvious that there is no chit of paper or application has

been produced before any authority by any kith and kin of the above named accused. As such it can not be said that the above named accused was

picked from jail gate about ten days before the occurrence. No doubt, all the witnesses are police personnel and the members of raiding party. But it is

obvious that the above named accused was caught in Sara Semar forest where no house was situated. As such making the local residence as a

witness was not possible. There are some contradiction between the statement of P.W.'s but the same are trivial in nature and the same is not fatal to

the prosecution case as all the witnesses remained intact on material particular. Therefore it is clear that the prosecution has successfully proved the

charge for the offence punishable u/s 25 (1-B) a / 26 (1)/35 of the Arms Act as such he is found guilty for the same and he is convicted thereunder.

On the point of sentence, the learned trial court refused to give benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and imposed the sentence as already mentioned

above.

So far as appellate court is concerned, this Court finds that the learned appellate court also considered all the evidences on record and recorded

concurrent finding of facts in para 13 as follows:

The informant and all the witnesses examined by the prosecution in this case have clearly supported the prosecution case during examination in

the court by stating that during raid in the Sarsemar forest the accused /appellant was chased and caught red handed with fire arms and ammunition.

They have also identified the accused/Appellant. Prosecution has also proved the report of sergeant Major regarding test of fire arms and ammunition

which was found effective. The seized arms and ammunition were also produced in the court marked as Material Exhibit - M I and M II. There is

nothing contradictory in the cross-examination of any witness.

So far argument advanced by the defence counsel that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution in the case are members of raiding party, and no

independent witness have come to support the case of prosecution, is concerned, it is obvious that the raid was made in jungle which is a lonely place

and on chase the accused / appellant was apprehended so the presence of independent witness in that lonely place is seldom and on the sole ground

that independent witness have not been examined, all the cogent and plausible evidence adduced by the prosecution as discussed above cannot be

discarded. The accused / appellant was caught red handed with the Arms and ammunition. From the statement of the accused / appellant before the

police it is crystal clear that he had contact with the Extremist Group like PLFI so in my view the learned court below has rightly convicted the

accused / appellant for the offence U/s 25(1-b)a, 26 (1), 35 of Arms Act and rightly sentenced him. There is nothing illegality or irregularity in the

impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, which in my view warrants the interference of this appellate court. Accordingly, the

impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence under appeal passed by the learned court below is hereby confirmed and in the result, the

appeal is dismissed. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned court below along with LCR for information and needful.

Learned appellate court also considered the argument advanced by the defence that all the witnesses examined by prosecution in the case were

members of the raiding party and the plea that no independent witness had supported the case of the prosecution, and the same was rejected on the

ground that the raid was made in jungle which is a lonely place and on chase, the petitioner was apprehended so the presence of independent witness

in lonely place is seldom. The learned court below was of the view that on the sole ground that independent witness has not been examined, the

evidences adduced by the prosecution cannot be discarded. Learned lower appellate court also recorded that the petitioner was caught red handed

with the arms and ammunitions and also recorded that from the statement of the petitioner before police, it was clear that he had contact with the

extremist group like PLFI. The learned lower appellate court did not find any illegality or irregularity in the judgment as well as the sentence passed by

the learned trial court against the petitioner.

So far as merits of the case is concerned, not much has been argued by the petitioner and the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued on the

point of sentence. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has remained in custody during the entire trial and was released on bail by this Court vide order

dated 10.01.2014 and as per the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has remained in custody for a period of one-year- four-months. This Court

further finds that the petitioner was aged about 23 years on the date of his conviction on 19.09.2013. Considering the nature of offence involved in this

case and also the fact that the petitioner was apprehended with the arms red handed, this Court is of the considered view that there is no scope for

interference in the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned courts below. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby

dismissed.

Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner is hereby cancelled.

Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ""FAX"".