1. In this criminal appeal the appellant has been convicted by the trial Court for committing offence under Section 16 (1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2004 and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 2 months.

2. The appellant being in jail from 17-2-2010 he has served out the entire jail sentence of 5 years including the default sentence.

3. It is argued that seizure of explosive substance, naxal literature, wire, steel box, detonator, etc. from the appellant has not been proved, therefore, the conviction is not based on any lawful evidence. It is further argued that the appellant was arrested on some suspicion and the entire case is fabricated.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would support the impugned conviction.

5. According to the prosecution, the police personnel were in regular search and patrolling duty at village Kudurpani & Baisa during which the mukhbir informed the police party that the appellant, who is the resident of village Dhourabhata, is in possession of naxal literature, tiffin bomb, explosives, cartridge and other printing material. The police team went to village Dhourabhata encircled the appellant's house and interrogated him on which he admitted that he is a member of naxal sangam and he is in possession of naxal literature, tiffin bomb, explosives, cartridge and other printing material.

6. The prosecution case is based on the recoveries made from the appellant. The witnesses are mainly Police Constables including Karan Singh Netam (PW-4) and Durgesh Kumar Yadav (PW-5), who are the SPOs. These witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. Tijuram Kamar (PW-14) is a villager. He has been declared hostile, however, he admits that the police has come to the village on the date of incident. During cross-examination also he admits being interrogated by the police. Similarly, Ramlal Kamar (PW-15), a resident of village Dhourabhata, also admits that police team had recovered naxal literature and naxal articles from the appellant. He is a witness to the arrest memo (Ex.P/6).

7. It is the well settled proposition of law that the conviction can rest on the sole testimony of the police personnel when his statement is otherwise convincing, reliable and trustworthy and there is nothing to point out as to why the police personnel would falsely implicate the accused person.

8. In Govindaraju alias Govinda v. State by Sriramapuram Police Station and another, (2012) 4 SCC 722 the Supreme Court has held thus at paras 30, 31 & 32 :

30. It cannot be stated as a rule that a police officer can or cannot be a sole eye witness in a criminal case. It will always depend upon the facts of a given case. If the testimony of such a witness is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidences, then the statement of such witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a police officer and may have some interest in success of the case. It is only when his interest in the success of the case is motivated by overzealousness to an extent of his involving innocent people; in that event, no credibility can be attached to the statement of such witness.

31. This Court in the case of Girja Prasad while particularly referring to the evidence of a police officer, said that it is not the law that Police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption applies as much in favour of a police officer as any other person. There is also no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of a police officer even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. If such a presumption is raised against the police officers without