Appeal by two appellants convicted under the Arms Act. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and discharged the appellants from bail bonds due to insufficient evidence proving seizure of arms.
Judgment of trial court set aside; appellants discharged from liability of bail bonds.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.234 of 2003
======================================================
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocates Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, Advocates Mr. G.P.Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.N.Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-01-2018
The two appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 4th April, 2003 passed by the Additional Court No. 1, Nalanda in Sessions Trial No. 108 of 1991/73 of 2002 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 25(1-B) and 26(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 25(1-B) and further three years for offence under Section 26(1) of the arms Act. However, both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.234 of 2003 dt.20-01-2018 2/6
about stolen Aluminum wire of Harnaut P.S. Case No. 82/90 was kept concealed in the house of appellant Nand Kishore Das in village-Babhan Bigha Sabnahua. It is said that on receipt of alleged information, the informant along with Police personnel proceeded to the village of the appellants and searched the house of the appellant Nand Kishore Das on 16.09.1990 at about 6 a.m. in presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Ramautar Tanti (P.W.1) and Ram Ji Pandit (not examined). Two persons were found sitting on a Chowki kept in the Verandah. The informant Ram Beyas Singh (P.W.2) is said to have asked them to stand up and when they are alleged to have stood up, it was found that some articles were kept conceal beneath the bedding. According to the informant (P.W.2), one country-made pistol, one countrymade Pipe-Gun and two cartridges of 12 bore were found kept beneath the said bedding, which were seized by the informant in presence of the said two seizure witnesses. No license were produced by the appellants in regard to the possession of the same and upon which both of them were taken in custody. Seizure list is said to have been prepared with respect to alleged seizure and over which seizure witnesses, namely Ramautar Tanti (P.W.1) and Ram Ji Pandit (not examined) are said to have put their signatures in toke of being witnesses of alleged seizure witness.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.234 of 2003 dt.20-01-2018 3/6
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.234 of 2003 dt.20-01-2018 4/6
for non-examination of Ramji Pandit, the second seizure list witness and as such the prosecution has measurably failed to establish the case of seizure of illicit arms. Mr. Singh next submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to establish that the alleged seized articles were illicit arms and it was seized from the conscious possession of the appellants.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.234 of 2003 dt.20-01-2018 5/6
dispute the fact that the prosecution has not adduced evidence to establish the alleged seizure of arms from the conscious possession. In addition thereto he has not also been able to establish with reference to any scientific examination with the seized articles were illicit arms.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.234 of 2003 dt.20-01-2018 6/6
has admitted that informant has obtained his signature on plain paper and as such the prosecution has not been able to establish the seizure of arms muchless from the conscious possession of the appellants. The cumulative effect of non-examination of the seizure list witnesses, namely, Ramji Pandit, the deposition of P.W. 1 which indicates that seizure was not made in accordance with the mandatory requirement of law and the lack of evidence to prove the seized articles by scientific test that the seized articles were illicit arms, the conviction of the appellants by the trial court suffer from manifold infirmities and as such, the case cannot be taken as proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
the trial court is set aside. Since the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of the bail bonds.
(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)
spandey/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 25.01.2018 |
| Transmission Date | 25.01.2018 |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the seizure of illicit arms was proved beyond reasonable doubt given the hostile witness and lack of scientific report.
Whether the conviction is unsustainable due to failure to establish seizure from conscious possession and lack of independent witnesses.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Nand Kishore Das
Ram Baran Das
State Of Bihar
Anil Kumar Upadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
