A conviction under the Arms Act is unsustainable if the seizure process is procedurally flawed, specifically when independent witnesses are not examined, seized weapons are not sealed at the spot, and no identification marks are placed on the articles to ensure their identity.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH KUMAR, J.

By Court :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 15.02.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 368 of 2016 arising out of Sadar (Town) P.S. Case No. 111 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 765 of 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25(1B)(a)/26 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence under Sections 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for 2 months. The appellant has been further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine amount he should have to undergo S.I. for two months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The criminal law has been put into motion on self-statement of Sanjay Kumar Malviya, Sub- Inspector, Officer –In-charge of Sadar (Town) P.S. made on 10.05.2016 at 11.45 hours at Ranchi Road, behind Bhagwati Hospital being Sadar (Town) P.S. Case No. 111 of2016.

The brief story as per the prosecution is that on 10.05.2016 he got secret information to the effect that some miscreants are residing as tenants in the house of one Mishrajee situated behind Bhagwati Hospital and those miscreants commit loot of motorcycle, money etc. in the area. Thereafter sanha was registered and after information to the superior officer, the informant along with other police officers and constables reached behind Bhagwati Hospital. On seeing police jeep, two boys started fleeing from one house, who on chase were caught by the police force and on inquiry, disclosed their name as Shubham Kumar and Bishnukant Pandey @ Sonu Pandey. On search in presence of Anup Sahu and Nandan Kumar Chandravanshi one loaded pistol of .315 bore and one mobile was recovered from the possession of Shubham Kumar. Similarly one loaded pistol with cartridge of .315 bore was recovered from the possession of Sonu Kumar Pandey. Both the accused persons did not give any satisfactory answer with regard to the seized materials. Thereafter, seizure list was prepared and accused persons were taken into custody.

4. On the basis of the self-statement of the informant, Sadar (Town) P.S. Case No. 111 of 2016 was registered under Sections 25(1-b) a/26/35 of the Arms Act against two accused persons.

5. After investigation the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet under Section 25(1-b)a/26/35 of the Arms Act and thereafter cognizance has been taken by the learned C.J.M. for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)A/26/35 of the Arms Act.

6. The charge was framed under Sections 25(1-A) and 26 of the Arms Act on 11.04.2017 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To substantiate the prosecution story altogether twelve prosecution witnesses have been examined. Their brief statements are as follows:

I. P.W.1( Md. Arif Alam) – He is a member of the raiding party. He has stated that on 10.05.2016 he was posted as police constable in Town Police Station. Sanjay Kumar Malviya (P.W.6) was the Officer-in-charge on whose instructions they proceeded for Bhagwati Hospital, I.T Hostel at Ranchi Road where they saw two boys fleeing away from a building. Police force chased them and apprehended them, who disclosed their name as Shubham Kumar and Sonu Pandey. From the possession of Shubham Kumar, a country made pistol was recovered and from the possession of Sonu Pandey one country made pistol and a mobile phone was recovered. Thereafter seizure list was prepared and they brought the accused persons and seized articles to the police station. In his cross examination he has deposed that he cannot say which police constable caught which of the accused.

II. P.W.2(Pan