KRISHNA SARMA ALIAS SAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and order, dated 24.01.2006, passed, in Criminal Appeal No. 88/2005, by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and order, dated 26.03.2003, passed, in GR Case No. 258/1992, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, convicting the accused-petitioner under Section 25(1 )(a) of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months, has been upheld.

(2.) In a narrow compass, the case of the prosecution, as projected at the trial, may be put thus: On 28.01.1992, at about 7 am, when Sub-Inspector of Police, Debendra Nath Barman, accompanied by two constables, namely, Nareswar Deka (PW1) and Tapan Kalita (PW2), was on patrol duty near Pandu Ferry Ghat, located on the bank of the river Brahmaputra, they, in their routine course of checking, intercepted the accused-petitioner mear the said Ghat and, on conducting a search of the person of the accused-petitioner, they found a hand-made improvised pistol with one live cartridge tucked to the waist inside the trouser and covered under the shirt of the accused-petitioner. On finding the accused-petitioner in possession of the pistol and cartridge, the said Sub-Inspector of Police seized the pistol and the cartridge and, with the help of the said two constables, brought the accused to Jalukbari Police Station, where the said Sub-Inspector lodged a written FIR. Based on this FIR, Jalukbari Police Station case No. 52/92 under Sections 25(l)(a) of the Arms Act was registered against the accused. During the 0course of investigation, the said seized pistol and cartridge were sent to fthe Forensic Science Laboratory, Assam, Guwahati, and on examining the said seized materials, Forensic Laboratory, Assam, Guwahati, reported to the effect that the said seized materials were hand-made gun, which is a fire-arm, and the cartridge was meant for rifle and the same was manufactured at a Government owned factory at Jabbalpur. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the accused-petitioner under Section 25(1 )(a) of the Arms Act.

(3.) To the charge framed under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, the accused-petitioner pleaded not guilty. In support of their case, the prosecution examined altogether five witnesses. The accused-petitioner was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and in his examination aforementioned, the accused-petitioner denied that he had committed the offence alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. On finding the accused-petitioner guilty of the charge, framed against him, the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as mentioned hereinabove. As the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner also failed, the accused petitioner has come before this Court with the help of the present revision.