Md Israful Ansari And Anr vs The State Of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:32683

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1247 of 2017
--------
1. Md. Israful Ansari, S/o. Md. Shariff Ansari, residenct of village-
Lejang, P.O. & P.S.- Balumath, Dist.- Latehar.
2. Md. Nasir Ansari, S/o. Shakir Ansari, resident of Village-
Brahmani, P.O. & P.S.- Chandwa, Dist.- Latehar, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Opp. Party
With
Cr. Revision No. 1512 of 2017
--------
Israfil Ansari, S/o. Ahmad Mian, resident of village- Huchlu
(Icchak), P.O. & P.S.- Chandwa, Dist.- Latehar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Opp. Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Aman Ali, Advocate
: Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
(In Cr. Rev. No. 1247 of 2017)
: Mr. Ashish Kumar Sinha, Advocate
(In Cr. Rev. No. 1512 of 2017)
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
(In Cr. Rev. No. 1247 of 2017)

: Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P.
(In Cr. Rev. No. 1512 of 2017)


Judgment
th
C.A.V. On: 15 September, 2026 Pronounced On: 06/11/2026

1. Both these criminal revisions arise out of the common
Judgment. Accordingly, these revisions are being heard together and
disposed of by a common order.
2. Heard learned counsels appearing for the petitioners as well as
learned A.P.P. in both cases.

2026:JHHC:32683
3. Instant criminal revisions are directed against the judgment
rd
passed by learned District & 3 Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar in
Criminal Appeal No. 04/2017 & Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2017
th
dated 17 July, 2017, whereby and whereunder, the learned Appellate
Court has upheld the judgment of conviction and reduced the sentence
of the petitioners to the extent of R.I. for 2 years alongwith the fine of
Rs. 5,000/- each with default stipulation for the offence under Section
3(a) of the R.P.(U.P.) Act passed by learned Trial Court in R.P. Case
No. 41 of 2007 arising out of RPF/Post/Patratu Case No. 27 of 2007,
whereby, the petitioners were held guilty for the aforesaid offence and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years alongwith the fine of Rs.
10,000/- with default stipulation.
Factual Matrix:-
4. Factual matrix giving rise to these revisions is that on
25.05.2007 at about 7 P.M., the complainant S.I. Vinod Kumar
Bishwakarma (PW-3) received confidential information that some
miscreants are planning to sell the railway property which is lying
between Chetar and Richugota railway station. On which, a raid team
was constituted and the complainant alongwith the raiding team on
26.05.2007 proceeded for raiding the place of occurrence and reached
there at 5:00 A.M. It is alleged that raiding team saw 10-12 miscreants
were collecting heavy article of railway in the southern side. The team
chased them and succeeded in apprehending two miscreants from 20
meter north K.M. No. 196/22-20 and rest of the miscreants fled away
taking benefits of bushes and hills. Upon search of the apprehended
miscreants, 28 nos. of half divided wheel of railway wagon, 7 nos. of
Axel, one ton iron article and other articles were recovered. On
2 | P a g e
(Cr. Rev. No. 1247 of 2017 wt. Cr. Rev. No. 1512 of 2017)

2026:JHHC:32683
demand of document with regard to these railway properties, the
miscreants could not show the documents to the raiding team. The
apprehended miscreants disclosed their name as Md. Israful Ansari
(petitioner no. 1) and Md. Nasir Ansari (petitioner no. 2) of Cr.
Revision No. 1247 of 2017 respectively. They further disclosed that
they were called by Israfil Ansari to transport these iron scraps. The
seizure of the articles were prepared and taken to the Tori post.
On the basis of above, complaint RPF/Post/Patratu Case No. 27
of 2007 was registered on 26.05.2007 for the offence under Section 3
of the R.P.(U.P.) Act against the above named petitioners and one co-
accused.
5. After completion of enquiry, the enquiry officer finding the
prima facie case to be true against the petitioners filed the prosecution
report under Section 3 of the R.P.(U.P.) Act and the learned Trial
Court took cognizance under Section 3 of the R.P.(U.P.) Act and
charges were framed, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.
6. In the course of trial, prosecution has examined altogether 06
witnesses, which are as under:-
1) PW-1: Vijay Kumar Shaha
2) PW-2: Netaji Subhash
3) PW-3: Vinod Kumar Bishwakarma (Complainant)
4) PW-4: Sunil Kumar (Inquiry Officer)
5) PW-5: Shesh Nath Singh
6) PW-6: Kamal Singh
7. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following
documentary and material evidences have also been adduced on
3 | P a g e
(Cr. Rev. No. 1247 of 2017 wt. Cr. Rev. No. 1512 of 2017)

2026:JHHC:32683
behalf of the prosecution:-
i) Ext.-1: Seizure List.
ii) Ext.-2: Expert Opinion.
iii) Ext.-3: Complaint Petition.
iv) Ext.-4: Confessional statement of accused Md. Israful Ansari.
v) Ext.-4/1: Confessional statement of accused Md. Nasir Ansari.
vi) Ext.-5: Theft report.
vii) Ext.-6: Enquiry-cum-Prosecution report.
viii) Ext.-7: Registration Mark.
ix) Ext.-8: Map of the Place of occurrence.
x) Ext.-9: Signature on seizure list.
Material Exhibit:-
xi) Mat. Ext.-1: Seized Sample pasted with labels.
8. On the other hand, defence has not adduced any oral or
documentary evidence.
9. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence of the
prosecution, held the petitioners guilty for the offence under Section
3(a) of the R.P.(U.P.) Act and sentence them accordingly as stated
above.
10. Against the judgment of conviction and sentence, the
petitioners, namely, Md. Israful Ansari & Md. Nasir Ansari preferred
an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 04 of 2017, while petitioner Israfil
Asnari preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 05 of 2017, which
rd
were decided by the learned District & 3 Additional Sessions Judge,
Latehar, whereby, the learned Appellate Court also upheld the
judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court and reduced
4 | P a g e
(Cr. Rev. No. 1247 of 2017 wt. Cr. Rev. No. 1512 of 2017)

2026:JHHC:32683
the sentenced of the petitioners as stated above, which has been
assailed in this revision.
Submission on behalf of the Petitioners:-
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailing the impugned
judgment has submitted that the learned Trial Court as well as learned
Appellate Court have not taken into consideration, that no
independent witness has been examined by the prosecution in support
of this case. There is no independent witness either in relation to the
arrest of these petitioners at the place of occurrence or in relation to
seizure of the alleged railway property. It is further submitted that
learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have not
taken into consideration that conviction cannot be upheld only on the
basis of evidence of member of raiding team, who are highly interest
witnesses.
So far, petitioner Israfil Ansari (in Cr. Rev. No. 1512 of 2017)
is concerned, the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate
Court have not considered that this petitioner was neither apprehended
at the spot nor any incriminating article was recovered from his
possession. It is also submitted that only on the basis of confessional
statement of co-accused persons, who were apprehended at the spot,
this petitioner has been implicated. There is no evidence against this
petitioner to prove his guilt since the confessional statement of co-
accused is not a legal evidence in the eye of law and judgment of
conviction and sentence passed against this petitioner is no
sustainable. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence of the petitioners passed by the learned Trial Court and
5 | P a g e
(Cr. Rev. No. 1247 of 2017 wt. Cr. Rev. No. 1512 of 2017)

2026:JHHC:32683
upheld by the learned Appellate Court may be set aside and these
revisions may be allowed.
Submission on behalf of the State:-
12. On the other hand learned counsels for the State have defended
the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the petitioners
on merits and have jointly submitted that there are concurrent findings
of illegal possession of railway's properties. Therefore, there is no
reason to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the learned
Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court. These revisions are
devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.
Analysis, discussion and reasons:-
13. I have gone through the impugned judgments passed by the
learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court in the light of
contentions raised on behalf of both the parties.
14. It appears that the prosecution has examined altogether 06
witnesses on his behalf.
PW-3 Vinod Kumar Bishwakarma is the complainant of this
case. He has stated that on 25.05.2007, he received confidential
information with regard to transportation of stolen railway property by
the miscreant, upon which, he alongwith raiding team, raided the
place of occurrence near KM No. 196/20 on 26.05.2007 and
witnessed that some miscreants were shifting heavy articles from
south side to north side crossing railway track. The raiding team
chased the miscreants and apprehended two persons at 6:30 A.M. The
names of the apprehended miscreants were Md. Israful Ansari and
Md. Nasir Ansari. The team also identified two miscreants, namely,
Babulal Oraon and Israfil (present petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 1512 of
6 | P a g e
(Cr. Rev. No. 1247 of 2017 wt. Cr. Rev. No. 1512 of 2017)

2026:JHHC:32683
2017) and the apprehended miscreants also confirmed of identifying
it. This witness has further stated that they found 28 nos. of half
divided wheel of railway wagon, 7 nos. of Axel, one ton of iron
article, two numbers of iron rod, 4 numbers of bamboo balli and
ropes. On query about these articles, the apprehended miscreants
could not answer satisfactorily rather admitted these are railway
property. He prepared seizure list on direction by in-charge S.N. Singh
and proved the seizure list, which is marked as Ext.-1. He has also
proved written complaint, marked as Ext.-3, confessional statement of
apprehended miscreants marked as Ext.- 4 & Ext.- 4/1.
In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he reached
at the place of occurrence via train and jeep. He has further admitted
that there was no any vehicle standing at the place of occurrence.
PW-5 Shesh Nath Singh is the leader of raiding party as well
st
as 1 inquiry officer of the case. This witness has also corroborated
the fact regarding raid, arrest of the miscreants and recovery of
railway property. He has also proved his signature on the seizure list.
He has also proved the registration mark on the complaint marked as
Ext.-7. He has further stated that confessional statement of the
arrested miscreants were recorded by Vinod Kr. Vishwakarma (PW-3)
at his direction. He also visited the place of occurrence with V. K.
Saha (PW-1) and prepared a map of the place of occurrence at his
instance. He has proved the map prepared by him, which is marked as
Ext.-8. Thereafter, he took the statement of witness and in the
meantime, he was transferred from the post. He handed over the
charge of investigation to Sunil Kumar (PW-4).
In his cross-examination, he has produced the sample of the
7 | P a g e
(Cr. Rev. No. 1247 of 2017 wt. Cr. Rev. No. 1512 of 2017)

2026:JHHC:32683
seized article which is a part of trolley having label pasted on it
bearing signature of V. K. Vishwakarma, S.I. V. K. Saha, Expert J.E.
and signature of the apprehended miscreants, which is marked as
Material Ext.-1.
nd
PW-4 Sunil Kumar is the 2 inquiry officer of this case. The
case was handed over to him on 10.01.2008. He first inspected the
place of occurrence. During inquiry he received theft report from J.E
(C&W), which is marked as Ext.- 5 and Ext.-5/1. Thereafter, he tried
to apprehend the absconded miscreants. He has further proved the
inquiry-cum-prosecution report, which is marked as Ext.-6.
In his cross-examination, nothing specific has been elicited by
the defence and this witness admits that he has visited the place of
occurrence.
PW-1 Bijay Kumar Saha happens to be one of the members of
the raiding team. He has supported the statement of the complainant
and proved his signature on the seizure list.
PW-2 Netaji Subhash is an expert. He has stated that on
11.06.2008, he was posted at Barwadih station as Junior Engineer
(C&W) Department. On that day, he had gone to Tori outpost on the
message of RPF inspector Sunil Kumar (PW-4), where he was shown
14 wheels each cut into two pieces in total 28 pieces, 7 axel and
trolleys divided into several pieces weighing about one ton.
Accordingly, he inspected the articles and found to be of railway not
to be sold in open market and also useless. He has proved the expert
opinion, which is marked as Ext.-2. He has also signed over the label
pasted on the articles.
PW-6 Kamal Singh is also a member of raiding team. He has
8 | P a g e
(Cr. Rev. No. 1247 of 2017 wt. Cr. Rev. No. 1512 of 2017)

2026:JHHC:32683
also reiterated the same version as PW-3 Vinod Kumar Vishwakarma
and other witnesses. He has proved his signature on the seizure list,
which is marked as Ext.-9.
15. On the other hand, defence has neither examined any witness
nor any documentary evidence.
16. It appears from the evidence available on record that the
petitioners were apprehended possessing with the railway property i.e.
wheel of the railway, 7 nos. of Axel, one ton of iron article, two
numbers of iron rod, 4 numbers of bamboo balli and ropes, which
have been duly proved by the prosecution witnesses beyond
reasonable doubt. Ext-2, is the expert opinion, which has been proved
by PW-2 Netaji Subhash, which has clearly established that the seized
articles were of railway property and the same are not available in
open market. It is clear that the seized articles which were recovered
from the conscious possession of the petitioners was exclusively
property of Indian Railway and that was unlawfully obtained by the
accused persons. The apprehended accused also offered no reason or
explanation with regard to possession of railway property. Therefore,
conviction of the petitioners, namely, Md. Israful Ansari and Md.
Nasir Ansari (petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 in Cr. Rev. No. 1247
of 2017) for the offence under Section 3(a) of the R.P.(U.P.) Act is
hereby upheld.
17. Accordingly, Cr. Revision No. 1247 of 2017 is dismissed.
18. Pending I.A. (s), if any, stands disposed of.
19. Petitioners, namely, Md. Israful Ansari and Md. Nasir
Ansari (petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 in Cr. Rev. No. 1247
of 2017) are on bail. As such, their respective bail bonds are
9 | P a g e
(Cr. Rev. No. 1247 of 2017 wt. Cr. Rev. No. 1512 of 2017)

2026:JHHC:32683
cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the concerned
Trial Court within a period of two months from the date of this
judgment and serve the remaining sentence awarded by the
learned Appellate Court. The sentence already undergone by
them will be set off.
20. So far petitioner Israfil Ansari (in Cr. Rev. No. 1512 of 2017) is
concerned, his name in the alleged occurrence has come only on the
basis of identification by raiding team and on confession of accused
Md. Israful Ansari and Md. Nasir Ansari. Police has not recovered any
articles related to railway property from possession of petitioner
Israfil Ansari. Therefore, impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by the learned Trial Court and upheld by the learned
Appellate Court is hereby set aside.
21. Accordingly, Cr. Revision No. 1512 of 2017 is allowed.
22. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of.
23. Petitioner, Israfil Ansari is on bail. As such, he is discharged
from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged.
24. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the trial court records be
sent back immediately to the concerned Court for information and
needful.

( Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated: 06/11/2026
Rahul/NAFR
Uploaded on: 06/11/2026


10 | P a g e
(Cr. Rev. No. 1247 of 2017 wt. Cr. Rev. No. 1512 of 2017)