Upendra Rao vs State of Bihar

B.N.P. Singh, J.—Concurrent finding of guilt and the sentence recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court has been impugned in this revision. Factual matrix are that Bairia Police oh tip of information about complicity of the petitioner in a case of dacoity committed in village Khiryaghat, laid a trap in his house, which led to seizure of arms and cartridges and also some quantity of narcotic drugs. A Police case had been registered, investigation commenced and on its conclusion. Police laid charge-sheet before the Court.

During trial that commenced, the State examined altogether seven witnesses, including seizure list witness, Reporting Officer and also those who constituted raiding party. The Court also examined one Satya Narain Prasad as a Court witness who brought on record, sanction order passed by the District Magistrate for prosecution of the petitioner under the Arms Act. Defence of the petitioner, both before the Court below and the appellate Court, has been that of innocence and plain denial of his complicity, negativing the seizure allegedly from his house. However, the trial Court while rejecting plea of innocence of the petitioner, recorded verdict of guilt u/s 25(1)(b)(a) and 26(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced the petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years each on both counts with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

When this revision was admitted, hearing was directed to be confined to sentence only. Earned Counsel for the petitioner, arguing within the parameter of the direction of this Court, would urge that the prosecution was launched against the petitioner in the year 1999 and he has remained in custody for about 28 months against the sentence of three years awarded by the trial Court. This mitigating circumstance may deserve consideration in case finding of guilt as recorded by the Court below is endorsed by this Court.

Those who constituted the raiding party were I am Narayan Choudhary (P.W. 1), Ranjit Kumar Singh (P.W. 3), Ganesh Singh (P.W. 4) and Arvind Kumar Singh (P.W. 5). Bindeshwari Prasad (P.W. 6) was the Investigating Officer and Sukai Mahto (P.W. 7) was a seizure list witness. Satya Narain Prasad, a Court witness, as has been stated, has brought the sanction accorded by the District Magistrate, Motihari, on record. Mithilesh Prasad (P.W. 2) was the sergeant major who examined arms and ammunition allegedly seized from possession of the petitioner in which he recorded a positive finding about effectiveness of the arms and quality of the ammunition. Though Sukai Mahto (P.W. 7) acknowledged signature on the seizure memo, he turned volte fact to the State about seizure of any incriminating object from house of the petitioner. Be that as it may, the witness was not expected to append his signature without going into its contents and it is not unusual to turn volte face at trial. The finding recorded by the Court below and also its affirmance by the Court of appeal is based on correct appreciation of evidences placed on the record which did not merit interference. However, regard being had to the fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for 28 months against the sentence of three years, awarded by the trial Court and the prosecution having been launched about three years back, while upholding the verdict of guilt recorded by the Court below, the petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him ant with this modification in sentence this revision is dismissed.