The prosecution's failure to prove the identity of the seized weapon and the lack of necessary sanction for prosecution under the Arms Act led to the acquittal of the accused.

ORDER :

This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C’, for short) by the revision petitioners challenging their conviction and sentence, for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 25 (1B) (a) and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘Arms Act’ for short), by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I (JFCM- I), Hosdurg as per the judgment dated 21.01.2014 in C.C. No.440 of 2009, which is confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court, Kasargod, as per the judgment dated 19.01.2015 in Crl.A. No.28 of 2014. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred in this order as they were before the trial court.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 10.08.2007 at 11.30 hours, while PWs 2 and 3 - Forest Beat Guards attached to Panathur Bit, Panathady Section were conducting a routine inspection inside the forest at Kottoor coup area, they found accused No.1 hiding behind a bush aiming at something with a gun. Though the accused attempted to escape, the Beat Guards along with other forest officials successfully apprehended him and seized a loaded gun from his possession. They emptied the gun by firing it into the air. On conducting body search of accused No.1, they could seize used and unused cartridges of the gun. After arresting accused No.1, they returned to the Forest Range Office and entrusted him to PW1, the Forest Range Officer. Ext.P4 confession statement of accused No.1 was recorded by PW1 and on the next day he was entrusted to the Sub Inspector of Rajapuram Police Station and crime No.127 of 2007 for the offences under Section 3 read with Section 25(1B)(a) and Section 30 of the Arms Act was registered in that Police Station. As per Ext.P4 disclosure Statement made by accused No.1, the gun was obtained by him from another person. Accordingly, that person was also arrayed as accused No.2 in the crime. On completion of the investigation, final report was laid before the JFCM-I, Hosdurg, and it was taken cognizance. Meanwhile, the accused were enlarged on bail.

3. After serving copies of all relevant prosecution records to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C and after hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate framed the charge for the offences under Section 3 read with Section 25(1B)(a) and Section 30 of the Arms Act. The accused pleaded not guilty when the charge was read over and explained to them. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 10 were examined and Exts.P1 to P14 documents and MO1 to MO3 material objects were marked. The remaining witnesses were given up by the prosecution. When examining under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused maintained the plea of innocence and denied all the incriminating evidence brought out against them. Accused No.1 filed a statement that no gun was seized from his possession. Accused No.2 in his written statement stated that he had been asked by PW1 to produce his licensed gun at the Range Office and accordingly he produced MO1 to MO3 before PW1. No defence evidence was adduced from the side of the accused. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate found that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted accused No.1 for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 25 (1B) (a) of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and convicted accused No.2 for the offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

4. Though the accused filed Crl.A No.28 of 2014 before the Sessions Court Kasargod, after a brief analysis of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magist