IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 18.04.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2018, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

3. The petitioners have been convicted vide judgment and order of sentence dated 16.01.2018 passed in Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 1067 of 2015 corresponding to GR No. 5510 of 2015 registered under Sections 25(1B) (a)/26 of the Arms Act. The petitioners have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 30 months with fine of Rs.5000/- each with default clause for offence punishable under Section 25(1B) (a) of Arms Act and rigorous imprisonment for 30 months with fine of Rs.5000/- each with default clause under Section 26 of Arms Act and both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

4. The learned amicus Mrs. Prerna Jhunjhunwala submitted that the impugned judgments are perverse and call for interference by this Court. She submitted that the seizure of the arms from the possession of the petitioners have not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts, and there is inconsistent evidence of the witnesses, which are contradictory to each other. The learned amicus has submitted that the seizure had allegedly taken place in crowded place, but only one independent witness from the crowd was taken as witness to seizure, who in the cross-examination had stated that his signature was obtained on blank paper in the police station, and this witness has not fully supported the prosecution case.

5. The learned amicus submitted that, so far as the other independent witness i.e. PW-8 is concerned, the said witness was actually not an independent witness inasmuch as he was the driver of the police vehicle. She submitted that as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a circumstance where the search and seizure take place in crowded place, both the witnesses to search and seizure should be from amongst the people in the crowd and the seizure witness, PW-8, being not an independent witness, the conviction cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

6. The learned amicus has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1998) 2 SCC 371 (Sans Pal Singh Vs. State of Delhi) Paragraph No.3 and the judgment reported in (1996) 11 SCC 685 (Sahib Singh Vs. State of Punjab) Paragraph No.6.

7. The learned amicus further submitted that PW-1 has not stated about sealing of recovered weapon on the spot. So far as PW-2 is concerned, he has stated in his cross-examination at paragraph no. 18 that the arms were not sealed at the place of occurrence and he had kept the arms with himself for 1 or 2 minutes. PW-3 has stated that the arms were not sealed on the spot and there was no mark on the confiscated things. So far as PW-4, 5, and 6 are concerned, they have given different version with regard to sealing of arms. So far as PW-8 is concerned, he is a seizure witness, but with regard to sealing of arms, he has stated that he saw the process of sealing of arms, but did not see the entire process of sealing. She also submitted that there are other inconsistencies in the deposition of various witnesses and therefore, the impugned judgments call for interference.

8. The learned amicus also submitted that the reason of false implication is apparent from the evidence of defence witness who has deposed that he along with the petitioners went to lodge complain to Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy. S.P.) on 30.10.2015 regarding investigation of F.I.R being PS Case No.978 of 2015 lodged by the petitioner no.2 in connection with bullet shot at him but no arrest was being made pursuant to the FIR and the Dy. S.P called the SHO. At this, the SHO had taken away the petitioners as Dy. S.P. had asked the SHO investigate the case. Thereafter, the SHO took the petitioners for a ride and then lodged the present case against th