Non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal to prosecution if eyewitness testimonies are credible and reliable, reinforcing conviction.

JUDGMENT :

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.

The instant criminal revision is directed against an order of affirmation of the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Khagaria, on 30^th July, 2013, in Khagaria (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 330 of 2010, convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B)a, and 26(1) of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for 06 months. The said Judgment and order of conviction and sentence was affirmed by the leaned Sessions Judge, Khagaria in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2013. The order of conviction and sentence is under challenge in the instant revision.

2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 10^th of August, 2010, the informant got a secret information that some criminals assembled in Nanhku Mandal Tola within Khagaria Police Station. The said information was diarised and at about 00:15 hour the informant and Police party attached to Khagaria Police Station went to the said spot to workout the said information.

3. During raid, Police party found a person sleeping on a “Bamboo Macha” in front of the house of one Asharfi Yadav. On suspicion, the Police party called the said person, he woke up and one rifle and 16 number of live cartridges were recovered, concealed under the bed of the said person. As he could not account for the possession of the rifle and the cartridges, it is seized by the Police party at the spot under the proper seizure list, which was signed by the members of the raiding party. The accused was arrested and brought to the Police Station. The firearm was subsequently examined by the Sergeant Major and he opined that the seized firearm is in working condition and the cartridges were live cartridges.

4. After investigation, Police submitted charge sheet against the accused. The accused duly appeared before the trial court to face trial. The learned Magistrate framed charge under Sections 25(1-B)a/26 of the Arms Act against the accused. The charge so farmed was read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty. Accordingly, trial of the case was initiated.

5. In order to bring home the charge against the accused prosecution examined 8 witnesses, amongst them PW.-6 was the S.H.O. of Khagaria (Mufassil) Police Station. He was the informant of the case as well as the leader of the raiding party. All other witnesses are Police Personnel and PW.-4 is the Sergeant Major, who examined the firearm and ammunition. PW.-8 is the In-charge of P.S. Malkhana, who deposed that the firearm was seized in connection with Khagaria (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 330 of 2010 and was produced in Malkhana under his control. 6. It is needless to say that revisional jurisdiction is limited in comparison to a criminal appeal. In criminal revision, it is not open for the Court to appreciate, access and come to a decision as to whether the evidence on record is sufficient to warrant conviction against the accused. Only when appreciation of evidence is reported to be wholly perverse, the revisional Court can look into the evidence on behalf of the prosecution to come to a finding as to whether a final order of conviction and sentence ought to be overturned.

7. In the instant case, the learned Advocate for the accused/petitioner in course of his argument took the following plea:-

(a) According to prosecution the accused was arrested while possessing a firearm and live cartridges from the “Basa” of one Ashrafil Yadav, but said Ashrafil Yadav was not examined by the Investigating Officer during investigation of the case. He was also not cited as a witness of the