IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT AIZAWL BENCH
NELSON SAILO, ROBIN PHUKAN, JJ.
(The State) The National Investigation Agency – Appellant
Versus
Rohmingliana @ Hmingte @ Hminga S/o C.L. Thuama – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2019
Decided On : 05-09-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal relates to the acquittal under nia and arms act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenge focuses on the adequacy of evidence for possession. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court assesses evidentiary shortcomings sustaining acquittal. (Para 7 , 8 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the appellant, National Investigation Agency and Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. In this appeal, under Section 21 (1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (“NIA Act” for short), the appellant has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order dated 25.10.2018, passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Mizoram, Aizawl, in Crl. Trial No. 476 of 2013 (arising out of SC No. 97 of 2013, in Spl. NIA Case No. 1 of 2016).
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.10.2018, the learned trial Court had acquitted the respondent, namely, Shri Rohmingliana @ Hmingte @ Hminga, of the charges under Sections 23 (2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and under Section 25(1AA) of the ARMS ACT , 1959.
4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are adumbrated herein-below:
On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Sairang P.S. had registered a case being Sirang P.S. Case No. 8/2013, on 09.03.2013, under Section 25(1AA) of the ARMS ACT , read with Section 34 IPC, read with Section 14 FOREIGNERS ACT and endorsed SI Liansangzela to investigate the case. While investigation was being carried out by SI Lalsanga, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Internal Security-I Division, vide letter dated 03.06.2013, by exercising the power under Section 6 (5), read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, transferred the case to the National Investigation Agency (“NIA” for short) for investigation. Thereafter, the NIA had registered a case, being RC-02/2013/NIA-GUW and carried out the investigation and after completion of investigation, laid final report/charge-sheet, being charge-sheet No. 01/2016, dated 14.03.2016, against accused Moni Tripuri, Sabuj Chakma, Robi Chakma, C. Lalnghakthanga @ Nghaka and the respondent Rohmingliana
Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
Rizwan Khan vs. State of Chhattisgarh
State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram
Sasi and Another vs. State of Kerela
State of West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja
Upendra Pradhan vs. State of Orissa
Ashok Debbarma vs. State of Tripura
Baksish Ram and another vs. State of Punjab
Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P. (2002) 4 SCC 85
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka
Girija Prasad (Dead) by LRs. vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625
The prosecution failed to establish that the respondent had constructive possession over the seized arms, leading to the appeal's dismissal due to lack of evidence for conviction.
The importance of credible witness testimony and the need for substantial doubts to undermine the presumption of innocence.
Possession of ammunition and explosives by the appellants was established, leading to their conviction under the Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act.
The prosecution must prove unlawful possession of firearms beyond reasonable doubt, and minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies do not undermine the case if the overall evidence is credible.
Prosecution must establish agreement and actions for conspiracy, which can be proved via circumstantial evidence; minor investigative flaws do not negate reliable witness testimony.
The presumption of innocence prevails in criminal law; an acquittal should not be disturbed unless the findings are perverse or wholly unsustainable based on the evidence presented.
Conviction under the Arms Act was overturned due to critical evidentiary failures including improper handling of seized items and lack of ballistic expert testimony.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.