BHUNESHWAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revision applications arise out of the same case and as such, these are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsels for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.

(3.) FROM the perusal of the Lower Court Records, it appears that the petitioners were made accused in Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S. Case No. 366 of 1992, corresponding to G.R No. 2213 of 1992 on the allegation that on 13.6.1992, the petitioners were apprehended from a motorcycle and from possession of the petitioner Nem Chand Mahto , one loaded country made pistol and one cartridge were recovered whereas, from possession of the petitioners Bhubneshwar Mahto and Narayan Mahto, one cartridges each were recovered in presence of two independent persons Shouki Thakur and Bal Mukund Prasad and the seizure list was prepared. It further appears that after investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet and the petitioners were ultimately put to trial. Lower Court Record shows that in course of trial, six witness were examined on behalf of the prosecution, including the informant, the I.O and the Sergeant Major, who had examined the fire arms. The seizure list was also proved and the recovered fire arm and cartridges were also produced, which were marked as material exhibits. Though it appears that the seizure list was prepared in presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Shouki Thakur and Bal Mukund Prasad, but only one seizure list witness namely, P.W.5, Bal Mukund Prasad has been examined and the another seizure list witness Shouki Thaken has not been examined in this case.