IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the absence of independent witnesses and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can undermine the prosecution's case, particularly in criminal proceedings under the Arms Act.

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. This criminal revision is directed against the Judgment dated 25.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No.252 of 2018 whereby the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners and has confirmed the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 25(1-B)( a) /35 and 26/35 of the Arms Act passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Ranchi in G.R. No.2897 of 2009 arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No.482/2009. However, the learned appellate court has reduced the sentences of the petitioners to Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 25(1-B)( a) /35 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 26/35 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional Simple Imprisonment for two months and both the sentences were directed run concurrently.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though there are concurrent findings recorded against the petitioners by both the courts, but the impugned judgments are perverse and call for interference. He has submitted that there are serious discrepancies in connection with the time of occurrence. P.W.-1 has stated the time of occurrence to be 23.45 hours; P.W.-2 has stated it to be 22.00 hours; P.W.-3 has stated the time to be 23.45 hours, and P.W.-4 has stated the time of occurrence as 18.30 hours.

4. The learned counsel submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged by police personnel and the seizure was also done by the police personnel, but the seizure list witnesses have not been examined. The learned counsel further submitted that the seizure had taken place in a crowded area, but in spite of that seizure witnesses have not been produced before the learned trial court and there is no independent witness to support the prosecution case. He further submitted that although it has been alleged that a knife was also recovered, but the seizure list does not mention about recovery of knife.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that no case under Section 35 of the Arms Act is made out against the petitioners as the seizure is not from any premises. He submitted that there is recovery of only one fire arm and there are two accused. As per the prosecution case, the fire arm has been recovered from the Petitioner No.1 Md. Aftab and therefore, there was no occasion to convict the Petitioner No.2. The learned counsel submitted that the seizure list was not prepared by the Investigating Officer, rather it was prepared by the informant who is the officer-in-charge of the police station.

6. He has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1996) 11 SCC 709 (Megha Singh versus State of Haryana) to submit that in absence of independent witnesses regarding seizure, the conviction cannot be sustained. He also relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Sans Pal Singh versus State of Delhi reported in (1998) 2 SCC 371.

7. He submitted that two cases were lodged out of the same occurrence, one was regarding the loot which had taken place by way of snatching money from the victim and it was alleged that the recovered arms and knife were used for the purpose, but a separate present case has been lodged under the Arms Act. He submitted that such a course of instituting two F.I.Rs arising out of the said incident is not permissible in law. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 (T.T. Antony versus State of Kerala and Others).

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the seizure has been sufficiently proved and it is not mandatory to examine the seizure list witnesses. He also submitted that official witnesses who are the poli