JUDGEMENT

This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C has been filed being aggrieved with the judgment passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in ST No. 200334/14 dated 20-10-2023 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25(1B)(a) of Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of fine amount further RI for three months.

2. The basic case before the learned Trial Court was that on 26-10-2013, the complainant Vikas Tiwari with his friend Lav Pandey and Vicky Dubey were going on Scooty Motor-cycle for Rewa via Nehru Nagar, Stadium Tiraha Sirmour Chowk to Shama Hotel, they hear the voice of abusing and gun-shot and Vikas Tiwari and Gaurav Mishra got injuries on the left thigh and leg. They filed FIR on 26-10-2013 reporting police Chowki Saman. The reporting police chowki registered Crime No. 0257/13 under Sections 307 and 34 Ex. P/15 and the case diary was transferred to police station Vishwavidyalaya on 27-10-2013 as Crime No. 470/13 Ex. P/20 under Sections 307 and 34 of IPC was registered. Investigation was initiated from the spot and empty cartridge of .32 mm was recovered seized through Ex. P/8. The injured were medically examined. The appellant was arrested and on his disclosure, the fire-arm was recovered. Permission under Section 39 of Arms Act was obtained from the District Magistrate, Rewa and after due investigation, the charge-sheet under Sections 307/34 of IPC and under Sections 25(1B)(a) and 27 of Arms Act was filed against the appellant and other co-accused persons.

3. After committal the case was committed to the trial Court. The trial Court framed the charges. The appellant abjured the guilt. After trial the appellant and other co-accused persons were acquitted from the charges punishable under Sections 307/34 of IPC and this appellant was also acquitted from the charge punishable under Section 27 of IPC but, the trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 25(1B)(a) of Arms Act, hence, this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant Shri Sheshraj Kushwaha has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and there are material contradictions, omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. The witness of search and seizure has not supported the prosecution case. The trial Court has not appreciated the fact that no pistol was recovered from the bed of the victim and seizure of the fire-arm has not been proved. The prosecution has not produced the Rojnamchasanha of search and seizure, Malkhana register before the trial Court. But, the Court has convicted the appellant solely on the statement of prosecution officer- Trivendra Trivedi (PW- 13). So, the conviction cannot be sustained and conviction be quashed and appellant be acquitted.

5. Learned Panel lawyer Smt. Seema Sahu appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and empty cartridge was recovered from the place of occurrence from the same fire-arm and the cartridge was fired and this fact was supported by FSL report Ex. P/24. In case of search and seizure, it is not always necessary that independent witness shall support the prosecution case. The trial Court has assigned reasons relying on the statement of Investigating Officer and the Investigating officer as no reason to falsely implicate the appellant. Hence, the judgment and sentence by the trial Court is proper. No interference is called for. 6. I have gone through the record.

7. In this case, the basic prosecution case was that on 26-10-2013,the victim Vikas Tiwari and Gourav Mishra suffered the fire-arm injury and on that basis, the case was registered and the appellant with other three co-accused persons were arrested and tried for the offence, the trial Court has acquitted the appellant under Sections 307/34 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

8. The releva