IMPORTANT POINT
Possession of ammunition and explosives by the appellants was established, leading to their conviction under the Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act.

JUDGMENT :

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.

1. Heard Mr. D.A. Kaiyum, learned counsel for the appellants: (1) Sri Lachit Rabha and (2) Sri Bhabesh Rabha and heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

2. Sri Lalit Rabha and Sri Bhabesh Rabha (hereinafter also referred to as the appellants or A-1 and A-2, respectively), have filed this appeal challenging the Judgment and Order dated 05.11.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara, in Sessions Case No. 17/2011, convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 25 (1-B) of the Arms Act, 1959 (the Act of 1959, for short), to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default stipulation and convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, (the ES Act, for short) to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each with default stipulation.

3. The case against the appellants is that they were active hardcore extremists of a banned militant organization and they have been indulging in subversive activities.

4. The genesis of the case was that on 01.09.2008, at about 10:30 am, the informant Khargeswar Rabha, acting on a tip off regarding the presence of three accused persons in the house of the accused Rofi Rabha, immediately, constituted a team of his staff and other security personnel and raided the house of Rofi Rabha and found the appellants inside the house. The appellants were caught red-handed in possession of 15 AK series ammunition and 3 Detonators. Rofi Rabha was not at home at that relevant point of time, but he had harboured the appellants. The seizure list was prepared in presence of Police personnel and on the same day, the In-charge of Darangiri, i.e. Sri Khargeswar Rabha, lodged a written FIR to the OC of Rongjuli Police Station. On receipt of the FIR, the OC of Rongjuli Police Station registered the Rongjuli PS Case No. 60/2008, under Sections 120(B)/121/121A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short), read with Section 25 (1-A) of the Act of 1959 and Section 5 of the ES Act. The informant embarked upon the investigation and he visited the place of occurrence (PO, for short). He prepared the site map of the PO from where the recovery was made and recorded the statements of the witnesses, including the other seizure witnesses. He forwarded the arms recovered for forensic examination. On collection of forensic report, he moved the then District Magistrate with a prayer for sanction. Prosecution sanction was granted and finally, on completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid under Sections 120(B)/121/121A of the IPC, read with Section 25 (1-A) of the Act of 1959 and Section 5 of the Act of 1908. At the time when the charge sheet was laid, all the accused including the appellants were under judicial custody, who were subsequently enlarged on bail. This case was then committed for trial.

5. At the commencement of trial, a formal charge under Sections 120(B)/121/121A of the IPC, read with Section 25 (1-A) of the Act of 1959 and Section 5 of the E S Act, was framed and read over and explained to the appellants, to which the appellants abjured their guilt and claimed innocence. Prosecution adduced the evidence of 5 witnesses, whereas the defence cross-examined the witnesses to refute the charges. On the incriminating evidence projected by the prosecution, statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the appellants’ answers to the questions were evasive in manner.

6. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that all the witnesses except PW-3 are official witnesses. PW-3 is the wife of the accused Rofi Rabha, who had harboured the appellants. Her evidence is not similar. Her evidence reveals that the search operation was conducted at night, whereas all the other witnesses have stated that the search operation was conducted at 10:00 am. Moreover, the evidence of all the witnesses clearly revea