In criminal trials involving the recovery of illicit items, failure to adhere to mandatory seizure procedures—such as immediate sealing of evidence—combined with hostile or unreliable witness testimony, renders the prosecution's case deficient, failing to satisfy the burden of proof required for conviction.

ORDER :

1. Heard Ms. Rita Kumari Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P.

2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 21.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 22.12.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – XVI, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No.06 of 2018, arising out of Sudhamdih P.S. Case No.34 of 2016 (G.R. No.3113 of 2016), whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 25(1-A)/ 26(2) of the Arms Act, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act and rigorous imprisonment for six years and fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 26(2) of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo R.I for six months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the informant, namely, Nilesh Kumar. S.I. has filed a written report stating inter alia that on 05.08.16 the S.S.P., Dhanbad has received a confidential information that one Shubham Yadav was possessing large number of fire arms in his house with intent to commit crime. Upon that, a raiding team was constituted including him by the S.S.P Dhanbad. It is further alleged that on getting information about the said fact he along with his team proceeded to spot and about 06.50 A.M. they reached at the house of Subham Yadav situated at Bhowra 13 No., PS Sudamdih, Dist. Dhanbad and surrounded the house of accused. On seeing police party nearby people assembled. It is further alleged that the house of accused was searched and in course of search it was found that one person was sleeping on bed, on being interrogated he disclosed his name as Shubham Yadav and at his instance one ash colour ladies bag was recovered under the bed sheet of his bed and one country made pistol loaded with .315 bore cartridge, one country made pistol made up of iron and wood loaded with two live cartridge, one country made pistol made up of iron and fibre loaded with four live cartridge recovered from said bag. It is further alleged that one maroon colour small bag containing 6 live cartridge of 9mm, two live cartridge of . 315 bore, two live cartridge of 7.55 bore and one empty magazine has also been recovered. On being asked about the recovered arms and cartridge, accused has neither produced any valid paper nor given any satisfactory answer, thereafter seizure list was prepared in presence of independent witnesses and the copy of the seizure list was given to accused who put his signature on it. Thereafter, the accused was arrested.

On the basis of above written report of the informant, the criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R being Sudamdih P.S Case No. 34/16 under Sections 25(1-A)/ 26 of the Arms Act.

The police, after completing the investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet and the trial court has framed charge under Sections 25(1-A)/ 26 of the Arms Act against the present appellant. Thereafter, the case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellant has pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the trial has commenced.

4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 08 witnesses and their depositions, in short, are as follows:-

5. P.W.-1, Vimlesh Kumar Pandey, is a seizure list witness and he has be