Prosecution must provide substantive evidence, including technical expertise, to prove charges under the Arms Act; failure to do so results in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2006 and order of sentence dated 01.08.2006 passed in Session Trial No.231/1997, G.R. Case No. 2919 of 1996 arising out of Topchanchi P.S. Case No.133 of 1996 by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Dhanbad, Jharkhand whereby and where under the appellant has been convicted under section 25(1) and 26/27 of Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default one-year S.I. under Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default one-year S.I. under Section 26 of the Arms Act and R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of one-year S.I. under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 25.9.1996 one Sri Padma Nath Upadhyay, S.I. of Topchanchi police station lodged information to the o/C.Topchanchi P.S. that on that day at 9.30 A.M. secret information was received that Upendra Biswakarma sells country made pistol after making it to criminals. It was also informed that half made country made pistol parts and machine may be recovered from his house. The said information was recorded in Sanha No. 604 dated 25.9.96 at Topchanchi P.S. and thereafter he alongwith other police force went to the village Kheshmi and surrounded the house of accused Upendra Biswakarma which is made of bricks and country made Tali from all sides and in the presence of two independent villagers searched the house of said Upendra Biswakarma and found two iron buts of country made pistol length 12", two iron buts of country made pistol length 14 ½ ", old barrel of country made pistol length 12", two new barrels of country made pistol 17 ½ ", two firing pins of country made pistol with hammer two triggers of country made pistol, three springs of country made pistol, locking pin of country made pistol and one grinder machine, for which the accused Upendra Biswakarma did not produce any papers regarding its possession. It is further alleged that one Jai Kumar Mishra paid him Rs. 100/- and told to give him a country made pistol who was demanding the same for last two or three days.

3. On the basis of said information Topchanchi P.S. Case No. 133/96 U/S 25(I) (ΑA)/26/35 Arms Act was registered and a formal F.I.R. was drawn up against the accused persons and investigation started. Thereafter police submitted charge sheet under the aforesaid sections against the accused persons on the basis of which cognizance was taken and subsequently case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial and disposal. Learned 1^st Assistant Sessions Judge at Dhanbad had framed charge on 01.05.1998 against this appellant under section 25(1), 26 & 27 of Arms Act. After framing the charge, the statement of witnesses was recorded and subsequently after closing the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused persons under section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recoded in which accused pleaded not guilty.

4. The learned trial court after conducting the full-fledged trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal.

5. Heard learned defence Counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant:

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the learned trial Court has committed gross error of law as well as facts in appreciation of the evidence and passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence in view of the fact that the prosecution could not prove as to whether the articles seized during the course of the search and seizure from the house of the appellant was used in the manufacture of country made pistols or not.

7. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that neither the I.O. in this case has been examined nor the articl