Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.

As the learned counsel for the appellant failed to appear on account thereof, Mr. Ranbir Singh, learned advocate has been requested to assist the court as an Amicus Curiae.

2. Appellant, Deolagan Rajak has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for three years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.5000/- in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for three months, additionally, under section 26(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for six years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.5000/- in default thereof to undergo SI for three months, additionally with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide judgment of conviction dated 21.02.2009 order of sentence dated 24.02.2009 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC, IV, Gaya in Sessions Trial No.143 of 2007/901 of 2007.

3. Rakesh Raman, PW.15 recorded his self statement on 21.07.2006 at 06:45 hours at village-Tarowa at the house of appellant Deolgan Rajak disclosing therein that he happens to be Officer-in- charge of Gurua P.S. After getting confidential information that accused Deolagan Rajak has stored illegal arms and ammunition in huge quantity to facilitate the crime, a raiding party has been constituted (so named) and house of Deolagan Rajak has been raided in presence of seizure list witnesses namely Ramswaroop Singh (PW.12) and Baldeo Mahto (PW.11) and during course of search from a steel box, as well as from a Kothi lying nearby arms and ammunition, explosive substance (as detailed under seizure list) recovered and seized. On query accused, who was present, failed to disclose that he was a licensee for retaining the aforesaid items and that being so, accused was presented. A copy of seizure list was handed over to the accused.

4. After registration of Guruva P.S. Case No.40/2006, investigation was entrusted to one of the members of the raiding party namely Mahesh (PW.2) who, conducted investigation and during course thereof, got the seized article properly examined by the ballistic expert (PW.13), procured sanction order (Ext.2) and then, after completing investigation, submitted charge sheet facilitating the trial, meeting with the ultimate result, subject matter of instant appeal.

5. Defence 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. It has further been submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the accused rather Mahesh Paswan (PW.2) was on visiting terms with Vinod Paswan whose wife had contested unsuccessfully during course of last mukhiya election against the wife of the accused and on account thereof, accused has been implicated in order to take revenge. Furthermore, one DW has also been examined on that very score.

6. Altogether fifteen Pws have been examined on behalf of prosecution who are PW.1-Sarju Singh, PW.2-Mahesh Paswan, PW.3- Sureshwar Singh, PW.4-Sanjay Singh, PW.5-Ashok Kumar, PW.6-Raj Ballabh Singh, PW.7-Udai Narain Singh, PW.8-Prayag Yadav, PW.9- Mahendra Ram, PW.10-Lal Mohan Singh, PW.11-Baldeo Singh, PW.12-Ram Swaroop Singh, PW.13-Mithilesh Prasad, PW.14-Uma Shankar Prasad and PW.15-Rakesh Raman. Side by side has also exhibited, Ext.1-Strile report relating to defusing of the explosive substance, Ext.2-Sanction order, Ext.3 Series-Signature of seizure list witnesses, Ext.4-Ballestic examination report, Ext.5-Self statement of the informant, Material exhibit has also been produced and stood as material Ext.I to VI. As stated above no documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of defence. However, one DW.1-Sheo Kumar Singh has been examined.

7. Learned Amicus Curiae assailed the judgment on two points, primarily. The first is from the evidence of PW.2, it is evident that house of appellant was in dilapidated condition, on southern side and further, on account of presence of jungle, one could h