No Railway Property Recovered From Third Accused: Jharkhand HC Sets Aside His Conviction, Upholds Two Others Caught With It

On 26 May 2007, an RPF raiding party apprehended Md. Israful Ansari and Md. Nasir Ansari near a railway track and recovered railway wheels, axles and other iron articles.

The prosecution alleged that they could not account for the property and disclosed that Israfil Ansari had called them to transport it.

Israfil Ansari was not apprehended at the spot, and no railway property was recovered from him.

The trial court convicted the accused under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.

The appellate court upheld the convictions but reduced the sentences to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 each.

The accused filed separate revisions, which the High Court heard together.

The Court applied Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, which penalises unlawful possession of railway property.

It treated proof that the articles were railway property, their recovery from an accused’s conscious possession, and the absence of a satisfactory explanation as supporting conviction under that provision.

The Court found the evidence insufficient to sustain conviction where there was no recovery from the accused and the alleged involvement rested on identification and co-accused confessions.

The judgment cited no precedent.

The Court relied on the raiding-party witnesses’ accounts of the apprehension and recovery, together with expert evidence identifying the seized articles as railway property.

It found the property to have been in the conscious possession of Md. Israful Ansari and Md. Nasir Ansari, who had offered no satisfactory explanation for possessing it; their convictions were therefore upheld.

By contrast, Israfil Ansari had not been apprehended and no railway property had been recovered from him.

Because the case against him rested on identification by the raiding party and co-accused confessions, the Court held the evidence inadequate to sustain his conviction.

They were directed to surrender within two months to serve the remaining sentence, with time already served to be set off.

Cr. Revision No. 1512 of 2017, filed by Israfil Ansari, was allowed; his conviction and sentence were set aside, and he was discharged from his bail bond and surety obligations.

The judgment does not separately formulate the issues; the questions above are derived from the parties’ submissions and the Court’s discussion.