Ankaiya Mog VsThe State of Tripura

Deepak Gupta, C.J.—This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 14-05-2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in case No. Criminal Appeal 08 of 2010 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioners and upheld the judgment dated 05-03-2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Belonia, South Tripura in case No. G.R. 161 of 2004 whereby he convicted the petitioners of having committed an offence punishable u/s 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1(one) year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- (rupees five hundred) each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1(one) month.

The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 29-08-2004 at about 9-30 p.m. the Officer-in-Charge of the Santirbazar Police Station received some secret information that one Umesh Reang who was absconding and was wanted in connection with a criminal case was hiding in the house of one of the petitioners. When raid was conducted in the house of petitioner Dhanuram Reang, though Umesh Reang was not found but one country made gun was recovered from the house of accused petitioner Dhanuram Reang. Thereafter, the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station received information that, in fact, Umesh Reang was hiding in the house of the second petitioner Ankaiya Mog. When raid was conducted in the house of Ankaiya Mog, again Umesh Reang was not found but another country made gun was recovered from that house. According to the prosecution, neither Dhanuram Reang nor Ankaiya Mog had any license to keep the said firearms and, therefore, prosecution was lodged against the petitioners u/s 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act.

Both the Courts below believed the statements of the prosecution witnesses and held that the guns had been recovered from the houses of the two accused and, therefore, convicted the accused. These judgments are under challenge in this case.

Sri P.K. Biswas, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, urges that when the guns were seized, the same were neither packed nor sealed and there is no specific mark to identify that it is these guns which were recovered from the houses of the accused. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Salim Akhtar @ Mota Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, he submits that when the guns were not seized and there is nothing to connect the guns which have been produced in Court with the guns which were seized, the accused have to be acquitted.

Each case especially a criminal case has to be decided on its own facts. As far as the judgment cited by Mr. Biswas is concerned, that was a case where the accused had been charged under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA). It was alleged that the accused along with other persons had hurled bombs at a police picket near Veterinary Hospital in Meerut. The accused were arrested and when they were under arrest, they made disclosure statements which led to the recovery of some concealed weapons, bombs, explosive material and pistols. In that case, those arms had been used for the commission of an offence and, therefore, it was necessary to properly link the arms with the commission of the offence. The observations of the Apex Court made in paras-8, 9 and 10 of the judgment in Salim Akhtar''s case have to be read in that particular context.

As far as the present case is concerned, the only allegation is that the accused were found with firearms in the house and they did not have a license for the same. True it is that independent witnesses have not been examined but the prosecution witnesses have stated that despite request being made, nobody from the neighbourhood was willing to join as a witness. One cannot lose sight of the fact that in the year 2008, Tripura was in the grip of terrorism and, therefore, witnesses may not be easily available. All the prosecution witnesses have stated that one country made gun was recovered from the house of accused Dhanuram Reang and one country made weapon was recovered from the house of accused Ankaiya Mog. They have been cross-examined but there is no cross-examination to the effect which will disprove the recovery of the weapons. These weapons have not been used for commission of an offence and, therefore, the mere fact that the weapons have not been specifically identified will not be fatal to the prosecution.

By now, the law is well settled that police witnesses are as good witnesses as any other witnesses. The only caveat is that when the prosecution relies only on official witnesses, then the statements of these official witnesses must be scrutinized with greater care and caution and if there are any contradiction in the statements of the official witnesses, benefit of such contradiction must go to the accused. In the present case, after going through the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses, I find no material contradiction in their statements. They have all stated that the weapons were recovered from the houses belonging to the accused and the case of the respondent is only of denial and nothing else. There is no enmity alleged against the police. The weapons, in my opinion, have been recovered from the houses of the accused and, therefore, the offence which is a violation of section 3 of the Arms Act is made out.

At this stage, it would also be pertinent to mention that this Court is hearing a revision petition and in revisional jurisdiction this Court does not interfere in findings of fact unless they are perverse or not based on any evidence. It cannot be said that the findings of fact arrived at by the learned trial Court are perverse or based on no evidence. Therefore, I do not feel that it is a fit case to exercise revisional jurisdiction.

The criminal revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

Send down the lower court records forthwith.