SAROJ YADAV Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State. Instant revision has been filed against judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.5.2012 passed by Mr. R.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in G.R. No. 887/2011, Tr. No. 2772/2012 whereby and whereunder petitioner, Saroj Yadav along with co -accused Parmatma Yadav @ Bhuwar Yadav were convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 25(1 -B)(a), 26 read with 35 of the Arms Act and directed both of them independently to undergo R.I. for three years as well as fined Rs. 5,000/ - in default thereof to undergo R.I. for 9 months in terms of 25(1 -B)(a)/35 as well as under Section 26(1)/35 of the Arms Act respectively with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently as well as the judgment dated 31.8.2012 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan in Cr. Appeal No. 12/2012 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court confirmed the finding arrived at by the learned trial court, however, reduced the quantum of sentence to undergo imprisonment for 20 months as well as slapped fine of Rs. 3,000/ - under Sections 25(1 -B)(a)/35, 26(1)/35 of the Arms Act respectively and in default of payment of fine to undergo 3 months under each head with a direction to run the sentences concurrently.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner while challenging the successive judgments of conviction and sentence has submitted that it is a clear case of plantation and that is the reason behind presence of inconsistency amongst evidence of the PWs so for recovery of live cartridge from the possession of petitioner is concerned. It has further been submitted that petitioner would not have been convicted with aid of Section 35 of the Arms Act because of the fact that prosecution has not been able to substantiate that the country -made loaded pistol possessed by Bhuwar Yadav having properly concealed was ever known to the petitioner. In likewise manner, it has also been submitted that mere possession of cartridge will serve no purpose that too in such meager number. Therefore, conviction of the petitioner is not at all justifiable and is fit to be set aside.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned APP opposed the prayer and submitted that so far finding over facts is concerned unless and until there happens to be glaring defect or the learned trial court had committed manifest error, the same cannot be brushed aside. Then referring the evidence on record submitted that the learned successive courts have appreciated the evidence in right perspective and on account thereof, the successive judgments are fit to be confirmed. It has further been submitted that the learned appellate court have taken pity over the petitioner as well as his associates during course of infliction of sentence. Hence, on this score also, there is no scope of interference.