RAOSAHEB BALU KILLEDAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant along with three others was sent up for trial for various offences. The learned Judge of the Designated court acquitted the three co-accused of the appellant of all the charges. He also acquitted the appellant for the offences under Section 141 read with S. 143 and 144. Section 146 read with S. 147.148, 302 read with Section 149 and in the alternative under section 302 read with Section 34, Section 307 read with Section 149 and in the alternative Section 307 read with Section 34 of the I PC and Section 3 (2 (i) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter TADA). The appellant was, however, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. Through this appeal undersection 19 of TADA he has called in question his conviction and sentence.

(2.) The only evidence on the basis of which the appellant has been convicted for the offences under section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. 1959 is the recovery of a country made revolver and a cartridge pursuant to a disclosure statement made by the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act from a place behind Kohinoor Mill, Dadar. The disclosure statement Ex. 11 was sought to be proved by the evidence of Panch witnesses Public Witness 1, pw 9 and pw 12.

(3.) According to the prosecution case on 2 7/07/1990 at about 1.30 p. m. the appellant while incustody of the police at the N. M. Joshi Marg Police station made a statement under Section 27 of the evidence Act in presence of Public Witness 1, pw 9 and Public Witness 12 which was reduced into writing disclosing the place where the weapon, a revolver with a live cartridge had been concealed. The appellant thereafter led the police party to a place behind Kohinoor Mill. Dadar and pointed out the place and himself removed the earth and from a pit about 6 inches deep recovered a revolver loaded with a live cartridge, wrapped in a polythene bag. The trial court relied upon this evidence and come to the conclusion that the appellant was inconscious possession of the revolver and the cartridge and convicted and sentenced him as noticed above.