JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the accused/appellant as well as Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, representing the State/respondent.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 16.07.2015, SI Dewan Wahidul Islam lodged an FIR in the Bijni P.S. stating that based on secret information on 15.0.7.2015 at about 10:30 p.m., a joint operation has been conducted by the Bijni Police along with one section of CRPF in village No.2 Dongagaon and apprehended one Giren Ray (present appellant) and recovered extorted money Rs.37,000/- from his possession. The accused person on further interrogation had disclosed regarding keeping of Rs.3,05,000/- with one Dipu Ray of Bijni Town and he guided the search party to the house of said Dipu Ray and Rs.3,05,000/- was recovered from his possession and seized the same. On further interrogation the accused disclosed about keeping of one sophisticated arms with ammunitions and he led the search party to the house of one Biren Narzary of village Chandmari under Sarbhog P.S. of Barpeta District and search was conducted and during search, on being shown by accused Giren Ray, one AK-56 rifle with 3 nos. of magazine, extortion note of ULFA(S) and other accessories which were kept concealed under the floor of a room in the house of Biren Narzary were recorded and seized.

3. On the basis of said FIR, the Bijni P.S. Case No.219/15 was registered, u/s.120(B)/121(A)/122/384 of the IPC, read with Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act and u/s.10/13 of the UA(P) Act. The police started investigation and after completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheet against three accused persons, namely Giren Ray @ Rinku Das, Dipu Ray @ Pradip Ray and Raju Das @ Raju Sarania, u/s.120(B)/121(A)/122/384 of the IPC, read with Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act.

4. The case was committed by the learned SDJM (M), Bijni for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Chirang at Kajalgaon, as the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and accordingly the Sessions Case No.267(B)/2015 was registered. After hearing the parties and perusing the relevant materials, charges were framed against the accused persons u/s.120(B)/384 of the IPC, read with Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act and explained to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 12 witnesses including the I.O. and exhibited some documents in support of their claim. The plea of the defence was of total denial and no defence witness was examined. The statement of the accused Giren Ray @ Rinku Das and Dipu Ray @ Pradip Ray was recoreed u/s.313 CrPC, whereas statement u/s.313 CrPC in respect of accused Raju Ray @ Raju Sarania was dispensed with as no incriminating materials could be found against him. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Court found the present accused/appellant Giren Ray @ Rinku Das not guilty u/s.120(B)/384 of the IPC and acquitted from those charges, whereas he was found guilty u/s. 25(1-A) of the Arms Act and sentenced to under R.I. for seven years and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default R.I. for three months, vide order 31.08.2016.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence of the learned Sessions Court, the accused/convict has preferred the present appeal on the grounds inter alia that the evidence on record does not warrant conviction of the appellant u/s. 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, there is no evidence against the accused/appellant that he was found to be in possession of any prohibited arms and ammunitions and therefore the conviction is bad in law and liable to be set aside, etc. and accordingly prays for setting aside the order of conviction of the accused/appellant under the said section of the Arms Act.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. P. Kataki as well as Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P., Assam representing the respondent. I have a