Point of Law: The position of law is that the burden of proof that requisite sanction had been obtained rests upon the prosecution. Such burden includes proof that sanctioning authority had given sanction in reference to the facts on which proposed prosecution was to be based. These facts might appear on face of sanction or it might be proved by independent evidence that sanction was accorded for prosecution after those facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated-26.11.2019, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, West Kameng, District-Bomdila in Sessions Case No.112/2015, under Section 304 (A) IPC, read with Section 25 & 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. It is to be mentioned here that vide aforesaid judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge, Bomdila has convicted the accused Khilli Chiroju, under Section 304 (A) IPC read with Section 25 & 27 (1) (2) of the Arms Act and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 3 years under Section 25 of Arms Act and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and 7 years under Section 27(2) of Arms Act and further sentenced to undergo SI for 1 year under Section 304 (A) IPC and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of fine to suffer another 2 months and further directed to set off his previous custodial period from total period of conviction.

2. The factual background leading to filing of this appeal is adumbrated herein below:-

“On 05.10.2015, one Khilli Chiroju, son of Sri Sasha Chiroju of village Nijung, P.S.-Nafra, West Kameng district was sleeping in his agricultural filed at Nijung. At around 3:30 AM he had noticed something moving in his field, and as wild bears used to cause mischief of his agricultural products, he thought it to be a wild bear and took out his country made gun and fired at it. But, he found that he shot one Sirin Khunjuju of the nearby agricultural field. He then tried to get him up but could not succeed as he became unconscious. Then, he rushed to his village and got some medicine for saving Sirin Khunjuju. But, in the meantime, Sirin Khunjuju succumbed to the injuries. He then surrendered before the O.C., Nafra police station at about 4 p.m. on 05.10.2015, and narrated the story to the Officer-in-Charge. Then, the O.C. reduced the same into writing and thereafter, he registered Nafra P.S. Case No. 06/2015, under Section 302 IPC read with Section 27(1) of Arms Act and investigated the same. During investigation he has visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and got the dead body of Sirin Khunjuju post-mortemed and collected the report and also he found two guns from the house of accused Khilli Chiroju and seized the same preparing seizure list and sends the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Thereafter, he collected the report and obtained prosecution sanction from the District Magistrate, East Kameng district to prosecute the accused under the Arms Act. He also arrested the accused and forwarded him to the Court. Then on completion of investigation, the I.O. laid charge sheet against the accused Khilli Chiroju to stand trial in the Court under Section 304 (A) IPC read with Section 27 (1) of the Arms Act, 1959.

3. On commitment of the case by the ld. CJM, East Kameng district, Bomdila, the learned Sessions Judge, Bomdila has framed charge against the accused under Section 304(A) IPC read with Section 27(1), (2) & (3) of the Arms Act and had read and explained the same to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Sessions Judge then examined as many as 5 witnesses, including the MO and IO, and after closing the prosecution evidence, examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, hearing arguments of both sides convicted the accused/appellant as aforesaid.

4. Being highly aggrieved, the accused-appellant preferred this appeal on the ground –

(i) That, the evidence on the record do not warrant conviction of the accused under section 304(A) IPC and 25/27(1) & (2) Arms Act;

(ii) That, not a single independent witness is examined by the prosecution to establish that the accused caused death of the deceased by gunshot;

(iii) That, the son of the deceased. Whom the prosecution side has examined as P.W.3 has testified that he only suspect that the accused is responsible for killing his father;

(iv) That, the ld. Sessions Judge has based conviction of th