ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.:–Sole appellant, Munna Sah @ Munnilal Sah @ Tigar has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years as well as to pay fine appertaining to rupees three thousand in default thereof to undergo S.I. for three months, additionally, under Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years as well as to pay fine appertaining to rupees ten thousand and in default thereof to undergo S.I. for two years, additionally, vide judgment of conviction dated 24.03.2015 and order of sentence dated 27.03.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,IIIrd, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial no.516/2010.

2. PW.5, Manoranjan Bharti, S.I. while was on day patrolling found a person sitting adjacent to Bijali Sah Majar. Seeing his activity to be suspicious they tried to interrogate whereupon he began to flee. As such, was chased, apprehended and searched out during course of which, from a Jhola being carried by him five live bombs were recovered while from his physical search, a countrymade loaded pistol was recovered. On query, he disclosed his identity as the appellant. It has also been stated that bombs were put in water for getting it diffused while arms and ammunition were sealed. Furthermore, it has also been disclosed that the Officer-in-charge, Babargan has disclosed the apprehended accused to be a notorious criminal. After restoration of Kotwali (Tatarpur) P.S. Case No.792 of 2009 on the basis of self-statement investigation, proceeded followed with submission of charge sheet facilitating the trial, the subject matter of challenge under present appeal.

3. Defense case, as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial. In order to substantiate the same, defense witnesses have also been examined.

4. In order to substantiate its case prosecution had examined altogether eight PWs, PW.1-Ravindra Kumar Singh, PW.2-Md. Ansar Alam both seizure list witnesses, PW.3-Ramchandra Yadav, PW.4-Arun Kumar Singh who produced material exhibit in the court, PW.5-Manoranjan Bharti, PW.6-Sideshwar Singh, PW.7-Abhay Kumar Pandit, PW.8-Balmiki Prasad Singh. Side by side had also exhibited Ext.1, 1/a-Signature of seizure list witnesses, Ext.1/2-Seizure list, Ext.2-Fardbeyan, Ext.2/1-Ballestic Report, Ext.3-Sanction order relating to recovery of arms, Ext.3/1-Sanction order relating to explosive substance act, Ext.4-FSL Report. Side by side had also exhibited material ext.I-Countrymade pistol and material Ext.II Seized cartridge. Defence had also examined three DWs. DW.1-Mahesh Prasad Sah, DW.2-Vikash Sah, DW.3-Munna Sharma himself however, no documentary evidence has been adduced.

5. It has been submitted on behalf of appellant that though before the learned lower court, there happens to be some sort of slackness at the end of the appellant while cross-examining the witnesses which, if properly cared with would have demolished the prosecution case, in its entirety even then, the improbability persisting in the prosecution case completely nullify the finding recorded by the learned lower court. To expose the infirmities on that very score, it has been submitted that ballistic expert has not been examined and his non-presence happens to be intentional one. To substantiate the same, it has been submitted that when the informant PW.5 inconsonance with the evidence of PW.8, the Investigating Officer is taken together, it is apparent that the story of recovery from the possession of the appellant happens to be afterthought. From the evidence of PW.5, inconsonance with the seizure list, it is evident that he sealed the seized arms and ammunition at the place of occurrence itself without disclosing that signature of seizure list witnesses as well as accused was taken thereupon, but when the materials exhibits were produced in court, he had disclosed with regard thereto

Click Here to Read the rest of this document