Jalauddin Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand

I have already heard the arguments of Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State.

The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.06.2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, (Fast Track Court), Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 99 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years for the offence under Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act and R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 09.07.2003, S.I., Ashok Kumar of Jamtara P.S. and S.I, Jagdish Pingua were in patrolling at the Karmatard area along with Constables Mohan Jha, Md. Nasim, Manoj Kr. Singh, Ajay Sharma and Balaram Mondal. The police party reached Karmatard market where at about 01:00 A.M., the informant received information that two partners were engaged in the illegal business of Barood, detonators, fuses etc. Both partners were quarreling with each other and that a quantity of illegal Barood was present at the spot. The informant has further stated that the police party proceeded for the place of occurrence at about 01:15 O'clock. Upon arrival, the police party saw crowd of villagers and two persons standing with a bicycle. On being interrogated, they disclosed their name as Jalauddin Ansari and Ekram Ansari. The police found one plastic sack placed on the carrier of the bicycle, which was filled with illegal Barood. The police demanded the documents authorizing the possession of the explosives, but none of the accused could produce any such document. The police seized the plastic sack from the carrier of the bicycle of the accused persons in which 19 packets explosive Powder GEL 801 explosive, one box containing 95 detonators SOD Special Ordinary Detonator, 12 bundles of thin rope fuse, 27 pieces small detonators bound with red wire and one bicycle. The informant has further stated that Jalauddin Ansari was also involved in the business. Accordingly, Jalauddin Ansari and Ekram Ansari were arrested.

On the basis of above information, Jamtara P.S. Case No. 114 of 2003 was registered for the offences under Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Explosive Substance Act against accused persons.

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons, namely Jallauddin Ansari @ Kalia, Nasim Ansari, Gobra Ansari and Jatil Ansari. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where Sessions Case No. 99 of 2004 was registered.

The accused persons denied from the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried.

In the course of trial, altogether 9 witnesses were examined by prosecution:-

P.W.-8-Bagachu Mian

Apart from oral testimony of witnesses following documentary evidence have been adduced by the prosecution.

On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by defence.

The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication only on the basis of suspicion and pleaded innocence.

The learned Trial Court after considering the evidence of prosecution arrived at definite conclusion about guilt of the appellant for the offences charged against him and convicted and sentenced him as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merits of the judgment has confined his argument towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has remained in custody for about one year, one month and thirteen days out of 5 years. It is submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and the prosecution has failed to establish the alleged offence against him beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel submits that the occurrence is of the year 2003 and now, more than two decades have passed from the date of occurrence. It is submitted that the appellant is aged about 62 years, therefore, the appellant has sufficiently been punished for his guilt and again sending the appellant for sustaining rest period of imprisonment would yield no useful purpose. Hence, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by him to meet the ends of justice in this case.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of learned Trial Court on merits. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, he has submitted that the occurrence is of the year 2003 and the appellant has sustained about one year, one month and thirteen days out of 5 years, hence appropriate order may be passed in the ends of justice.

On perusal of the evidence available on record, it appears that P.W.1, the informant and P.W.7, the Investigating Officer have consistently supported the prosecution case regarding the recovery of explosive substances from the possession of the present appellant. Their testimony stands duly corroborated by the seizure list (Ext.-5), prosecution sanction order (Ext.-6) and the F.S.L. Report (Ext.-7), which confirms that the seized articles were explosive substances. The learned Trial Court after proper appreciation of the evidence, rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant passed by the learned Trial Court is upheld.

So far as the sentence of the appellant is concerned, it appears that the occurrence is of the year 2003 and since then, more than two decades have elapsed and the appellant has suffered long agony of the trial and the appellant has remained in custody for about one year, one month and thirteen days out of 5 years as awarded to the appellant, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Hence, it appears expedient, in the ends of justice to modify/alter the sentence of the appellant.

Accordingly, the sentence of the appellant is modified to the extent of period already undergone by the appellant i.e. about one year, one month and thirteen days out of 5 years as awarded to the appellant.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above.

Appellant is on bail, as such he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged.

Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of.

Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.