DULAL BISWAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Sessions Trial Case No. 59 (ST/u) of 1995. By the impugned judgment and order aforesaid all the accused-appellants were convicted for offence under Section 25 (1) (a) (b) of the Arms Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the conviction the appellants have come up with this appeal. The conviction and sentence aforesaid was earlier upheld in appeal by a Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 9. 5. 2001. An appeal being preferred against the said judgment and order of this Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 12. 6. 2008, passed in Crl. Appeal No. 269 of 2002 set aside the said judgment of this Court and remitted for fresh consideration. In view of the above this matter has come up for consideration before this Court.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A. L. Saha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. B. R. Das Roy, learned PP-in-charge for the State. Perused the materials on record.

(3.) SUBMITTING on behalf of the accused-appellants Mr. Saha has advanced the argument that there is no legal evidence against the accused-appellants and as such the impugned conviction and sentence was bad in law. The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution failed to substantiate the seizure of the incriminating materials i. e. the arms and ammunitions from the accused-persons by adducing cogent and independent evidence. It is submitted that there is sufficient contradiction in the evidence of PW 7, a Police Officer who claimed to be present at the time of seizure and the Investigating Officer (PW 9) who made the seizure. In order to appreciate the evidence on record I feel it appropriate to briefly reproduce the evidence of witnesses as follows:-