SANTOSH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28.4.2006 and order of sentence dated 1.5.2006 recorded in S.T. Nos. 346 of 2004, 424 of 2004 and 127 of 2005 by the Additional Sessions Judge FTC No. III Jamshedpur by which the appellant and another two accused were held guilty for the charge under Sections 353/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - for his conviction under Section 307/34 of the Indian penal Code, Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the charge under Sections 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for three years for separate charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act and fine on each count with default stipulation. All the sentences awarded against the appellant and others were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution story in short was that the informant Arvind Kumar Singh (P.W.7) the then Officer -in -charge of Dumaria police station narrated that pursuant to secret information on 20.6.2002 at about 8.45 a.m. that one Akhilesh Singh, who was declared absconder in the case of kidnapping and murder of a Jailor, was seen at Road No. 20 along with his associates near Tata Workers Union School at Sidhgora area and that the Appellant Santosh Kumar Gupta was also there amongst them, making preparation for committing serious offence, the informant communicated such information to the Senior Police Officers and on their instruction he took Arvind Kumar,(P.W.5) the then Officer -in -charge of Burma Mines Police Station with him and further picked up Shri Ohm Prakash Police Officer from Sidgora Police Station and then proceeded towards Road No. 20 on a Maruti Car No. BR 16N 6061 where they arrived at about 9.20 a.m. and spotted the appellant, Santosh Kumar Gupta, Akhilesh Singh and one unknown standing around a Yamaha motor cycle and talking together. The informant with other witnesses came closer near them with the intention to apprehend Akhilesh Singh and other culprits and when the informant and the S.I. Ohm Prakash attempted to surround the accused Akhilesh Singh after alighting from the car, Akhilesh Singh identified both of them and cautioned them to return back, lest they would be killed. The informant and the S.I. Ohm Prakash tried to surround him from both sides but it was alleged that in the meantime Akhilesh Singh fired two shots aiming S.I. Arvind Kumar and that one of the shots caused injury by penetrating glass screen of the car on the lower portion of the right eye of S.I. Arvind Kumar who was sitting on the driving seat of the said Maruti car. In the same transaction it was alleged against the appellant Santosh Kumar Gupta that he fired two shots from his revolver aiming at the informant and the S.I. Ohm Prakash but it did not hit the target. In retaliation the informant and the S.I. Ohm Prakash fired two shots from their service revolvers aiming the culprits. Witnessing the counter fire from the police side, all the culprits then started fleeing towards western side and that they were chased by the informant and the S.I. Shri Ohm Prakash but all the three culprits snatched a Kawasaki Bajaj motor cycle of a by passer on the point of gun and escaped however, leaving their Yamaha motor cycle No. BR -16C -2547 at the place of occurrence. The victim S.I. Arbind Kumar was removed to Tata Main Hospital where his injury was treated and on the basis of the written report of the informant Arvind Kumar Singh Sidgora P.S. Case No. 68 of 2002 was registered on 20.6.2002 for the alleged offence under Sections 307/326/353/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act against Akhilesh Singh, Santosh Kumar Gupta (appellant) and one unknown criminal.

(3.) AFTER their criminal trial all the three accused were convicted for the charge under Sections 307/34, 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act, accordingly they were sentenced for imprisonment and with fine as referred to herein before.