The prosecution in a criminal case must prove the allegations beyond all reasonable doubts, and the benefit of doubt should go to the accused persons in case of two inferences.

C.R. Sarma, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Sessions Trial Case No. 59 (ST/U) of 1995. By the impugned judgment and order aforesaid all the accused-Appellants were convicted for offence under Section 25(1)(a)(b) of the Arms Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the conviction the Appellants have come up with this appeal. The conviction and sentence aforesaid was earlier upheld in appeal by a Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 9.5.2001. An appeal being preferred against the said judgment and order of this Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 12.6.2008, passed in Crl. Appeal No. 269 of 2002 set aside the said judgment of this Court and remitted for fresh consideration. In view of the above this matter has come up for consideration before this Court.

2. I have heard Mr. A.L. Saha, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. B.R. Das Roy, learned PP-in-charge for the State. Perused the materials on record.

3. Submitting on behalf of the accused-Appellants Mr. Saha has advanced the argument that there is no legal evidence against the accused-Appellants and as such the impugned conviction and sentence was bad in law. The learned Counsel further submitted that the prosecution failed to substantiate the seizure of the incriminating materials i.e. the arms and ammunitions from the accused-persons by adducing cogent and independent evidence. It is submitted that there is sufficient contradiction in the evidence of PW 7, a Police Officer who claimed to be present at the time of seizure and the Investigating Officer (PW 9) who made the seizure. In order to appreciate the evidence on record I feel it appropriate to briefly reproduce the evidence of witnesses as follows:

PW 1 Sri Rashmi Kr. Noatia, who was cited as one of the witnesses to the seizure in the seizure list (Ext. 3), stated that one night at about 1.30 a.m. he along with others went to the house of Joseph Sichim and that the Police took them to the Police Station. He further stated that the Police had assaulted them. This witness was declared hostile and the prosecution was allowed to cross-examine him. He denied the suggestion that some ammunitions were seized by the Police in his presence. In his cross-examination he further stated that the Police, in the Police Station, forcefully took his signature on some papers after showing some guns therein. This witness did not support the prosecution version of seizure from the accused persons. PW 2 Sri Phani Bhusan Das, an SI of Police stated that he along with SI Sanjit Debbarma (PW 9), on the basis of the secret information, went to the house of Sri Joseph and after entering the house they found some persons with firearms and other incriminating articles. He further stated that 8 persons with 3 country-made guns, one spear and some ammunitions were found. This witness was not a witness to the seizure. In his cross-examination he stated that he could not recognize the miscreants who were found with the incriminating articles. Therefore, from the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 I find nothing in favour of the prosecution to believe that the seized articles i.e. guns and the ammunitions were recovered from the possession of the accused-Appellants. PW 3 Sri Moloy Gagra, PW 4 Pradip Marak and PW 5 Sri Santi Noatia were cited as witness to the seizure, but the prosecution after tendering them declined to examine. Therefore, it appears that none of the persons in presence of whom the seizure was alleged to be made were examined by the prosecution to substantiate that the seizure was made from the possession of the Appellants. Thus, it can be safely held that the prosecution failed to prove the seizure by adducing independent and cogent evidence. PW 7 was an Inspector of Police and he accompanied the I.O. (PW 9). He stated that the I.O. Sri Sanjit Deb