SUGAMBER SINGH @ SWAGAMBER SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners along with Dayanand Mahto and Krishna Mahto on being tried by Sri R.N. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Biharsharif suffered conviction on different counts, as while Nawal Mahto, petitioner No. 2, Dayanand Mahto and Krishna Mahto suffered conviction under Section 25(A) of the Arms Act and also Section 26 of the Arms Act, for which they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years and three months respectively on these two counts, petitioner No. 1 suffered conviction under Section 30 of the Arms Act for which he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months. Those who suffered conviction on two counts and were sentenced as such, in their cases, the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The factual matrix are that Harnuat Police during investigation of Harnaut PS Case No. 11(2)80, on receipt of confidential information about stolen goods of the case to be in the cabin of Dayanand Mahto, constituted a raiding party and led to seizure of a loaded rifle from possession of petitioner No. 2 and also live cartridges from possession of Dayanand Mahto and Krishna Mahto. A police case had been registered on behest of Subhash Sharma, Officer-in-charge of Harnaut Police Station and on conclusion of investigation police laid charge-sheet before the Court and trial commenced. In the eventual trial the prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses which were seizure list witnesses, Police Officers and also one formal witness.

(3.) The defence of the petitioners had been that of innocence and they scribed their false implication. However, the trial Court rejecting their plea of innocence, recorded finding of guilt and sentenced the petitioners along with Dayanand Mahto and Krishna Mahto in the manner stated above. When petitioners challenged the finding recorded by trial Court in appeal, bearing Cr. Appeal No. 92 of 1987, the appellate Court too having endorsed the finding recorded by the Court below affirmed the judgment.