SHYAMLAL PASI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have preferred this revision application against concurrent finding of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court by judgment dated 08.10.1999 in Trial No.41 of 1999, arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No.05 of 1993 whereby convicted under Sections 25(1-B) A, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment for each three offences separately but directed to run the sentences concurrently and the same was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge IVth, Kaimur at Bhabua in Criminal Appeal No.107 of 1999/32 of 2016 without any modification.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that five witnesses examined in this case by the prosecution inclusive of informant, the I.O., two seizure list witnesses and one formal witness but out of them both seizure list witnesses have not supported the prosecution case relating to recovery of any arms or ammunition, so on this ground the prosecution case cannot be said to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Further submission is that with respect to Gudri Pasi and Surya Pasi @ Suraj Pasi, petitioner nos.2 and 3 that neither any pistol, arms or any cartridges were recovered from their possession nor it was seized from a place which was in joint occupation or in control of these two petitioners. It is further submitted that the prosecution case is that these accused persons were sitting by the side of the road then police came and apprehended them, so even Section 35 of the Arms Act is not attracted in this case, therefore, there is complete lack of evidence against these two petitioners but have been convicted by the trial court and also conviction affirmed by the appellate court. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have no criminal background and the judgment itself reflects that no such evidence regarding criminal antecedent was produced before the court.

(3.) Contrary to the said arguments, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the charge under Section 35 of the Arms Act has been proved against Shyamlal Pasi, Gudri Pasi and Surya Pasi @ Suraj Pasi, petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 and the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground of seizure list witnesses not supporting the recovery as now a days it is a trend that independent seizure list witnesses do not support the prosecution case out of fear or being apathetic to the circumstances.