SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pannalal Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh 4 … on 1 August, 2018

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Criminal Appeal No.1166 of 2003

Judgment Reserved on : 2.5.2018

Judgment Delivered on : 1.8.2018

Pannalal Sharma, son of Late Shri Shankarlal Sharma, aged about 63 years,
Retired Jailer, R/o Kanchanganga Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
—- Appellant
versus

State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Dhamtari, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
— Respondent

——————————————————————————————————

For Appellant : Shri P.P. Sahu and Shri R.K. Pali, Advocates
For Respondent : Shri U.K.S. Chandel, Panel Lawyer

——————————————————————————————————

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.10.2003

passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur in

Sessions Trial No.177 of 1996 convicting and sentencing the

Appellant as under:

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 25(1B)(a) of Rigorous Imprisonment for 1
the Arms Act year and fine of Rs.500/- with
default stipulation

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on the fateful day, the Appellant

was posted as a Jailer in Sub-Jail, Dhamtari. In January-February

of 1995, brother of the prosecutrix (PW22) was lodged in the said
2

jail relating to a case under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. It is alleged that the prosecutrix (PW22) along with her

husband went to the jail. Thereafter, she went to the house of the

Jailer/Appellant. The Appellant called her again on the next day.

Thereafter, he sent her husband out to bring some articles and

thereafter he committed rape with the prosecutrix. She did not tell

the incident to any person due to fear. It is further alleged that the

Appellant used to call the prosecutrix at his house frequently. The

Appellant and co-accused Mohan Pinjani, Chintamani Rao, Shyam

Sunder, Ghevarchand, Shailendra, Ramanuj Sharma and Shailesh

used to drink liquor together and they also make the prosecutrix

drink liquor and thereafter they used to commit sexual intercourse

with the prosecutrix. Later on, the prosecutrix told about the

incident to her husband. She lodged First Information Report

(Ex.P29). During investigation, 1 desi katta (country-made pistol)

of 12 bore, 4 cartridges of 12 bore and other articles were seized

from possessions of the Appellant vide Ex.P34. The seized katta

and cartridges were examined by Head Constable Krishna Rao

(PW21). His examination report is Ex.P28 in which he has opined

that the katta was made of 12 bore and was in working condition.

He has further opined that 3 cartridges were alive and 1 cartridge

was misfired. Sanction for prosecution (Ex.P33) of the Appellant

was issued by the Collector/District Magistrate, Raipur.

Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. On completion of the investigation, a

charge-sheet was filed against the present Appellant as well as

against co-accused Mohan Pinjani, Chintamani Rao, Shailendra,

Shyam Sunder, Ghevarchand, Ramanuj Sharma and Shailesh for

offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 506B, 292 of the
3

Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

Charges were framed against the present Appellant under Sections

376(2)(g), 506 Part II, 292 of the Indian Penal Code and under

Sections 25(1B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, against co-accused

Shailesh under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, against

co-accused Mohan Pinjani under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian

Penal Code, against co-accused Chintamani Rao under Section

376(2)(g) of the Indian Panel Code, against co-accused Shailendra

under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, against co-

accused Shyam Sunder under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506 Part II

of the Indian Penal Code, against co-accused Ghevarchand under

Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and against co-

accused Ramanuj Sharma under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian

Penal Code.

3. To rope in the accused persons, the prosecution examined as

many as 29 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were

also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure in which they denied the circumstances appearing

against them, pleaded innocence and false implication.

4. During trial, co-accused Ramanuj Sharma and Shailesh died. After

trial, co-accused Mohan Pinjani, Chintamani Rao, Shailendra,

Shyam Sunder and Ghevarchand have been acquitted of all the

charges. The present Appellant has been convicted only under

Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act and has been acquitted of all the

other charges framed against him. He has been sentenced as

mentioned in first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.
4

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant argued that

statement of Pratap Singh (PW28), the witness of seizure of desi

katta is not reliable. He has categorically stated that he did not

remember that even the said seizure was made before him or not.

How was this witness present at the time of alleged recovery is

also a big question. The presence of other seizure witness Baldeo

Singh (PW29), who was residing 5 Kms. away from the place of

occurrence is also a big question. His statement is also totally

unreliable and cannot be made basis for the conviction. He further

argued that the sanction of the Collector for prosecution of the

Appellant is not in accordance with law. Before granting sanction

for prosecution, the Collector was not given full particulars.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the Collector was apprised with

the correct position and he applied his mind while granting the

sanction for prosecution. Therefore, the conviction of the Appellant

is not maintainable.

6. On the contrary, Learned Counsel appearing for the State

supported the impugned judgment and submitted that both the

seizure witnesses have supported the seizure of katta and

cartridges. The sanction for prosecution of the Appellant is also in

accordance with law. The Appellant has rightly been convicted and

sentenced by the Trial Court.

7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the record minutely.

8. Regarding seizure of the katta and cartridges, Inspector Bhim
5

Bahadur Singh (PW25) has stated that on 26.6.1995 at about 9:30

p.m., he had seized 1 desi katta (country-made pistol) in working

condition and 4 live cartridges of 12 bore, 1 air pistol, ½ packet of

chharra of air pistol and other articles vide Ex.P34. Pratap Singh

(PW28) and Baldeo Singh (PW29) are the witnesses before whom

the said seizure was made. Both have supported the case of the

prosecution and have stated that the police had seized the desi

katta, cartridges and other articles from the house of the Appellant

in their presence vide Ex.P34. In paragraph 4 of his cross-

examination, Pratap Singh (PW28) has stated that the cartridges

were kept in a bag which was lying on the chhajja constructed in

the room and the katta was kept in open condition. He has further

stated that audio cassettes were lying on bed. But, other seizure

witness Baldeo Singh (PW29), in paragraph 3 of his cross-

examination, has stated that all the articles were recovered from an

attachi kept over an almirah placed in the room. From the above, it

is clear that there is contradiction in the statements of both the

seizure witnesses. Whether the seized articles were kept over the

chhajja or in an attachi kept over the almirah is not clear.

9. The seized katta and cartridges were examined by Head

Constable Krishna Rao (PW21) on 18.7.1995. His report is

Ex.P28. He has stated that the katta was in working condition and

3 cartridges were alive and 1 cartridge was misfired. The above

katta and cartridges were seized on 26.6.1995 vide Ex.P34. There

is no evidence on record as to where and in which condition the

said seized articles were kept. The katta and cartridges were

examined by Head Constable Krishna Rao (PW21) on 18.7.1995.

His examination report (Ex.P28) also does not suggest that the
6

said katta and cartridges were placed for examination before him in

a sealed condition.

10. Regarding the sanction for prosecution of the Appellant, the

prosecution has examined Julfakar Haidri (PW24), a Clerk of the

Collectorate, Raipur. He has only stated that vide Ex.P33, the

Collector issued the order of sanction for prosecution of the

Appellant, but during cross-examination, he has categorically

admitted that he was unable to state that which documents were

referred to and on what grounds the sanction for prosecution was

granted. The sanction order (Ex.P33) reads as under:

“dk;kZy; dysDVj ,oa ftyk naMkf/kdkjh] jk;iqj

vkns’k
dzekad dA vfHk-fy-A95 jk;iqj] fnukad 14795
iqfyl v/kh{kd] jk;iqj ds vijk/k dzekad [email protected] /kkjk 25] 27
vkElZ ,DV ds rgr vkjksih iUukyky firk ‘kadjyky ‘kekZ mez 56
lky mi tsy /kerjh ls 1 ns’kh dV~Vk 12 cksj dk 4 dkjrql pkyw
gkyr esa tIr fd;k x;k gS A vkElZ ,DV dh /kkjk 3 dk mYya?ku
,d naMuh; vijk/k gS A
vr% vkjksih iUukyky ‘kekZ firk ‘kadjyky ‘kekZ dks ‘kL
vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr /kkjk 39 ds rgr U;k;ky; esa vfHk;ksftr djus
dh vuqefr iznku dh tkrh gS A
lgh%
¼nsojkt fojnh½
ftyk naMkf/kdkjh] jk;iqj
i`”Bkadu dzekad dAvfHk-fy-A95 jk;iqj fnukad 14795
izfrfyfi% iqfyl v/kh{kd] jk;iqj dks dzekad ,e-A12976A95
fnukad 13795 ds lanHkZ esa MqIyhdsV Mk;jh
lfgr izsf”kr gS A
gLrk{kj
ftyk naMkf/kdkjh]
jk;iqj”

11. From a bare perusal of the sanction order (Ex.P33) also, it is not
7

clear that which documents were referred to and on what grounds

the sanction for prosecution of the Appellant was accorded by the

Collector. Hence, it is established that the Collector had not

applied his mind before according the sanction for prosecution and

it appears to have been granted by him in routine manner.

12. From the above, it is clear that though the seizure witnesses

Pratap Singh (PW28) and Baldeo Singh (PW29) have supported

the seizure, but there is contradiction in their statements. One has

stated that the seized articles were kept over the chhajja, but the

other has stated that the seized articles were kept in an attachi

which was kept over an almirah placed in the room. Hence, the

seizure is doubtful. Apart from that, the seized katta and cartridges

were examined by Head Constable Krishna Rao (PW21) on

18.7.1995. There is no evidence on record as to where and in

which condition the seized articles were kept after their seizure and

before their examination. It is also not established that the seized

articles were placed for examination in a sealed condition. The

sanction for prosecution (Ex.P33) also does not reflect that there

was an application of mind by the Collector before granting it and it

appears to have been granted by him in routine manner.

Therefore, the offence under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act

against the present Appellant is not proved beyond reasonable

doubt.

13. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of

conviction and sentence is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of

the charge framed against him.

8

14. It is reported that the Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall

continue for a further period of six months from today in terms of

the provisions contained in Section 437A of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

15. Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this

judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel)
JUDGE
Gopal

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation