CHANDRAPAL Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 18.12.1997, passed in Sessions Trial Nos. 161/95, 160/95 and 163/1995. The appellants were tried for commission of Offence under Sections 399/402 of I.P.C. and under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The trial Judge acquitted the appellants from the commission of offence under Sections 399/402 of I.P.C, however, found the charge proved against the appellants for commission of offence under Section 25 (1) (1 -B) (a) of the Arms Act and awarded sentence of two years and fine of Rs. 500/ - each. In the present appeal, the appellants challenged their conviction and sentence awarded to them for commission of offence under Section 25 (1) (1 -B) (a) of the Arms Act.

(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief is that, an information was received on 27.07.1995 by Devesh Kumar Pathank (PW -6) Station House Officer Incharge Nayagaon that four to five unknown persons were assembled at Satna -Chitrakoot road near Murum Khadan. SHO (PW -6) along with police force reached on the spot and he found that the accused persons had been preparing to commit dacoity. After investigation the police filed the charge -sheet. The trial Court framed the charges, the appellants abjured their guilt. After trial, the trial Judge found that the charges proved against the appellants for commission of offence under Section 25 (1) (1 -B) (a) of the Arms Act and awarded sentence of RI for two years and fine of Rs.500/ - each.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has contended that the findings recorded by the trial Court that the appellants are guilty for commission of Offence under Section 25 (1) (1 -B) (a) of the Arms Act are perverse. The trial Court has committed an error of law in placing reliance on the evidence of Devesh Kumar Pathak (PW -6) who was sub -Inspector of Police. The independent witnesses of seizure of arms, have not support the case of the prosecution hence, the evidence of (PW -6) Mr. Pathak and other police witnesses cannot be held reliable. He further submitted that the trial Court has not found the offence proved against the appellants for commission of offence under Section 399/402 of I.P.C., hence, the seizure from the appellants is also suspicious because the presence of the appellants on the place from where the alleged seizure was made was not genuine.