Ranbir Singh vs State of Bihar

B.N.P. Singh, J.—Though Petitioner along with one Baleshwar Singh was prosecuted on accusation of seizure of arms and ammunitions from their houses the trial commenced only against the Petitioner who suffered conviction u/s 25(a) of the Arms Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years.

The factual matrix are that on 24th January, 1988, Sri A.N. Das, Sub-lnspector of Police (P.W. 11) on receipt of confj dential information about concealment of booty of Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No. 96 of 1987, in the house of Uchit Narayan Singh of village Parora, made station diary entry, proceeded, took assistance of police of Balia Police Station and led a trap in the house in question, when in presence of two witnesses and also the police officials, from northern room of the house, there had been seizure of a country made rifle and two live cartridges from a place kept below the cot on which the Petitioner was found sleeping. Since Petitioner had no valid authority for arms and ammunitions, there has been prosecution. After the police was set in motion, investigation commenced, on conclusion of which, the police laid chargesheet before the court. In the eventual trial that commenced, the State examined altogether 11 witnesses including the police officials, Sergeant major and also two seizure list witnesses.

The defence of the Petitioner both before the court below and this Court had been that of total innocence and also that accusation of seizure of offending articles had been fastened against him at the instance of the persons who were hostile to him. The trial court, however, on consideration of probative value of testimony of witnesses, while negativing plea of innocence of the Petitioner, recorded finding of guilt and sentenced him in the manner stated above. When the matter was carried in appeal by the Petitioner, the appel-late court too while endorsing the guilt of the Petitioner, reduced sentence to one and half years, regard being had to the nature of accuscition attributed to him which is under challenge in this revision.

Before contentions raised on be-half of the Petitioner are bestowed due consideration, I wish to state with brevity, testimony of witnesses which have been Broadly spelt out in the judgments of the court below. Though Randhir Kumar Singh (P.W. 1) and Baikunth Singh (P.W.2) who were projected as seizure-list witnesses and had turned volte face to the State, it was rightly noticed by the appellate court that during their corss-examination, they also stood witnesses of the alleged sei-ture and search. P.W. 4, Arbind Kumar Happens to be a constable who participated in raid, testified to recovery of arms and ammunitions. Krishna Singh P.W. 7 was one of the members of raiding party who stated about seizure of offending articles from possession of the Petitioner which was found kept below the cot on which he was sleeping. Narrations almost in slmilar vain and terms were made also by Sri R.P. Yadav P.W. 8, Rabindra Prasad Singh P.W. 9, Sri N.K. Rajak P.W. 10 and Sri A.N. Das P.W. 11. The State had placed on the record also the finding of the Sergeant Major P.W. 3 who stated to have found arms and ammunitions effective.

Three fold contentions were raised at bar on behalf of the Petitioner to assail the finding of guilt recorded by court below, and foremost criticism was that though finding of guilt recorded against Petitioner was on premises of Petitioner being found in possession of offending articles, since evidence placed on the record did not suggest house or room in question to be in exclusive possession of the Petitioner and also that it was within the knowledge of the Petitioner that the offending articles were kept in the room, the guilt cannot be fastened against him and reliance on this score was sought to be placed on a decision of the Apex Court of the land reported in 1973 BLJR 781 (Pabitar Singh v. The State of Bihar). The evidence on this score has been nicely dealt with both by trial court and the appellate court, which came to conclusion that since seizure of arms and ammunitions were made from a place below the cot on which the Petitioner was sleeping, there was reasonable presumption to believe that the presence of offending articles was within the knowledge of the Petitioner. The ratio decidendi cited at bar was that if the court has reason to believe that the accused charged for, was aware of the existence of the unlicensed fire-arm, verdict of guilt can be recorded by the court. As I have stated, both the courts below have answered this question in favour of the State.

True it is that the seizure list witnesses examined at trial had turned vorig. face to the State and guilt was sought to be established with the testimony of the police officials but ipso facto credibility of the police personnels cannot be questioned for the reason that they were police officials. Yet it''s sought to be urged that since there has; been no production of the offending articles at the trial, that too had introduced serious infirmity in the prosecution verion, and on this score too I find that the entire prosecution case otherwise credible, cannot be negatived for fault on part of Investigating Officer.

Though appellate court has given due consideration to the nature of accusations in view of the matter that prosecution was launched gainst the Petitioner in the year 1988, while endorsing the finding of guilt, the sentence is reduced to the period of six months and with this modification, the revision is dismissed.