RUPON BASUMATARY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have arisen out of the judgment and order, dated 23.02.01, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, in Sessions Case No. 163(S)/99, convicting the accused-appellants under Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act, and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.

(2.) The case against the accused-appellants, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus: During the course of interrogation of two accused persons, namely, Sri Dhruba Basumatary and Sri Dilip Bak, the police came to learn, on 02.06.96, that arms would be found kept at the house of accused Hareswar Basumatary at village Garjuli. The said two accused, namely, Dhruba Basumatary and Dilip Bak also told the police that they would be able to show the place, where the arms could be found. Having made, in this regard, Entry No. 53, dated 02.06.96, in their general diary, at Dhekiajuli Police Station, a police party went to the house of accused Hareswar Basumatary and conducted a raid there. During the raid, the police found accused Rupon Basumatary and Hareswar Basumatary sleeping in a room and near accused Rupon Basumatary, one Stangun was found lying and near accused Hareswar Basumatary, one AK 47 rifle was found lying. The arms were seized from accused Rupon Basumatary and Hareswar Basumatary and, upon returning to the police station, Sub-Inspector Maheswar Bora, who had conducted the raid, lodged a formal F.I.R. Based on this F.I.R., a case was registered against the two accused under Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act. During investigation, the Tezpur Reserve Armour certified that the said Stangun was a hand-made firearm in serviceable condition and that the AK47 rifle was not in serviceable condition. On completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the two accused aforementioned under Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act.

(3.) To the charge framed against them at the trial, under Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act, both the accused pleaded not guilty. In support of their case, prosecution examined six witnesses. The accused were, then, examined under Section 313 CrPC and, in their examination aforementioned, both the accused denied that they had committed the offence alleged to have been committed by them, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. Having found both the accused guilty of the charge framed against them, the learned trial Court convicted the two accused accordingly and passed sentence against them as mentioned hereinabove. Aggrieved by their conviction and the sentence passed against them, the two accused have preferred the present appeals, Criminal Appeal No. 60/2001 having been preferred by accused Rupon Basumatary and the Criminal Appeal No. 74/2001 having been preferred by accused Hareswar Basumatary.