SULENDER SAHU Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order and judgment dated 19.08.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2012, whereby the judgment of conviction of the petitioner dated 04.06.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in G.R. No.510 of 2010, Trial No.238 of 2012, corresponding to Kisko P.S. Case No.49 of 2010, was upheld for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)a/ 26(1) of the Arms Act and sentence of two years under the both the offences were reduced and the petitioner was directed to under go R.I for one year for the offence under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees fine thousand) and in default thereof further to undergo S.I for one month and no separate sentence was passed under Section 26(1) of the Arms Act.

(2.) Brief facts of the case is that Kisko P.S. Case No.49 of 2010 was lodged on the basis of the self statement of the Officer-In-Charge of Kisko Police Station and it is stated that on confidential information, that a looted mobile of Kisko P.S. Case No.49 of 2010 was in possession of the accusedpetitioner, Sulendra Sahu, accordingly a raid was conducted and a l mobile, country made pistol along with two .315 live cartridges were recovered from the box kept in the house of the petitioner-accused. The petitioner in his defence submitted that pistol and cartridges belonged to his brotherin-law. Police seized the said articles and charge-sheet was submitted for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)a/ 26(1) of the Arms Act. The petitioner faced the trial for the charges under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26(1) of the Arms Act. The trial court and the appellate court found the petitioner-accused guilty for the said offences.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court and the appellate court have failed to appreciate that the independent witnesses have not been examined and the procedure prescribed was not adhered to during search and seizure. That and alleged country made pistol and cartridges were not recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. That there is no material evidence on record to establish the charges under the aforesaid offences, hence the judgment and conviction is fit to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be acquitted of the charges.