JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.06.1990, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri, in Sessions Case No. 117 of 1989 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 6 of 1990, whereby the appellant was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act. In the said judgment, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the findings and sentence recorded in the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

3. In short compass, the case of the prosecution, as emerging from the materials on record, may be delineated as follows:

“A written complaint was lodged at the police station by the defacto complainant, alleging, interalia, that on 18.01.1983 at about 02:00 hours, upon receipt of secret information, Sub-Inspector Mr. Chhetri, along with other police personnel, proceeded to village Ja-Chandrapur. While approaching the river side of Birkiti, the police party allegedly noticed a group of persons sitting near a bamboo bush. It was alleged that upon noticing the presence of the police personnel, the miscreants suddenly opened fire from their firearms. Thereupon, Sub-Inspector Mr. Chhetri allegedly ordered the police personnel to retaliate, as a result of which about 20 rounds were fired in total. It is further alleged in the written complaint that the miscreants attempted to flee from the spot, but one of them, namely the present appellant-convict, was apprehended. It was claimed that during the exchange of fire, the appellant sustained one penetrating wound and one bleeding injury on his knee. Upon interrogation, the arrested accused allegedly disclosed the names of seven other persons who were stated to have assembled at the said place. According to the prosecution, a pipe-gun loaded with one fired 12-bore cartridge, one live cartridge, and a two-cell electric torch were recovered from the possession of the arrested accused. During a search of the adjoining area and the place of occurrence, the police personnel allegedly found another injured person, namely Baktiar Mia, who subsequently succumbed to his injuries at the hospital. It was further alleged that the dead body of another accused was found by the side of the river Birkiti and was identified as Fuleswar Roy. On the basis of the said written complaint, Falakata Police Station Case No. 9 dated 18.01.1983 was registered under Sections 399, 402 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against the appellant and the other seven persons named in the FIR. Thus, the criminal law was set in motion.”

4. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted by the prosecuting agency on 01.04.1989 under Sections 399/402/307 of the Indian Penal Code and 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act was submitted against this appellant and against the deceased accused persons named Baktiar Mia and Fuleswar Roy who were, however, shown to be dead in the charge-sheet.

5. In this case, nine witnesses were cited by the side of the prosecution and documents were marked as exhibits on its behalf. Neither any oral nor any documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence.

6. Ms. Monami Mukherjee, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant, has strenuously contended that the learned Trial Court committed a grave miscarriage of justice in convicting the appellant under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act. It is submitted that the conviction rests on a fundamentally flawed appreciation of evidence, particularly in view of the categorical denial by the alleged members of the raiding party regarding their participation in the raid on the relevant date and time.

7. Learned Amicus Curiae has drawn t