AMBO SHARMA, SON OF SHRI PREM SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MATHAR, POLICE STATION KHAGARIA, DISTRICT KHAGARIA Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been found guilty under Sections 25 (1) (a), 25(1-b)A, 26 (i) and 26 (ii) of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, two years, two years and five years respectively.

(2.) The prosecution case has been instituted on the statement of PW 7 Md. Sujauddin. According to the First Information Report, he along with the Raiding Party was visiting different villages in order to arrest the accused of Mufassil Shivir Police Station Case No. 455 of 1998 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In course of their duty, they learnt that the appellant Ambo Sharma is running a mini-gun factory in village Mathar. Before reaching Mathar, they had also conducted raids at Tikarampur and some other villages. On reaching Mathar, they stopped their jeep at some distance and entered into the house of Ambo Sharma, which was situated in the middle of the village and found several items which were utilized for the purpose of manufacturing illegal arms. At the time of raid, two persons ran away from the hut of Ambo Sharma, who were caught hold of on chase by the Raiding Party and a pistol was recovered from each of them. The seizure was prepared and thereafter the First Information Report was instituted.

(3.) At the outset, it may be stated that the seizure list witnesses, although they have admitted their signatures on the seizure list, claimed that the seizure was not made in their presence and as such, PW 2 Uday Kumar Mandal and PW 4 Arun Yadav have been declared as hostile witnesses. PW 1 Yogendra Mandal, PW 3 Mahendra Das, PW 5 Premchand Yadav, PW 6 Praphullit Kujur, PW 7 Md. Sujauddin (informant) and PW 8 Prembir Jha (Investigating Officer) are witnesses with respect to the actual raid. Out of the witnesses aforesaid, it is stated that PWs 3, 6 and 8 would be actual persons who had entered into the hut of the appellant and seized illegal arms. The rest of the witnesses were present at the place of occurrence and had surrounded the house of Ambo Sharma while their Officers were conducting the search. This aspect of the matter is supported by PWs 1, 5 and 8, the Investigating Officer who was present at the place of occurrence. There is no material in their cross- examinations, which would lead this Court to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses. It is admitted by all the witnesses that the house/hut of the appellant was a temporary construction i.e. it was a thatched room made of straw, which is the spot from where the recovery was made.