Ranjeet Kumar Singh vs The State of Bihar

B.N.P. Singh, J.—This revision is against the concurrent findings recorded by courts below by which the finding of suit under Sections 25(1B)A and 26(1) of the Indian Arms Act recorded by trial court and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for a term of one year each under both counts and also sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 500/- (five hundred) in each count, with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently was affirmed by the appellate court.

The factual matrix are that Khagaria Police on tip of information about assemblage of miscreants in village Sanhauli, led a trap in house of Sagar Mandal, when Petitioner along with two others was apprehended, and their personal, led to seizure of arms and ammunitions from their conscious possession. As for Petitioner, it was alleged that there had been seizure of loaded country made pistol from his possession for which he did not have any valid authority. After a police case, making such accqusations was registered, investigation commended, on conclusion of which the police laid chargesheet before the court. In the eventual trial that commenced, the prosecution examined a number of witnesses.

The defence of the Petitioner had been that of plain innocence and he ascribed false implication. The trial court, however, rejecting the plea of innocence of the Petitioner, placed reliance on the testimony of the witnesses who were police personnels and other witnesses, and recorded finding of guilt and sentenced the Petitioner and two others in the manner stated above. As has been stated, when the matter was carried in appeal, the finding recorded by the court below was affirmed by the appellate court too, which is impugned in this revision.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would urge that since the finding was based on testimony of all those, who happened to be nonelse but only the police personnels, the prosecution case had suffered vice of paucity of independent evidence. The other limb of argument canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner was that since Investigating Officer was one of the police personnels who constituted raiding party, the trial had vitiated on that count too and the last argument was that the Petitioner remained in custody as undertrial prisoner for more than four and half months and also during post conviction period he remained in custody for more than six months. Since the prosecution was launched against the Petitioner in the year 1996, it is urged that the Petitioner has suffered ordeal of protracted prosecution for about six years and as the Petitioner has suffered custody for major period, for which he was sentenced, these mitigating circumstances deserve consideration in awarding sentence, if the finding of guilt recorded by the court below is upheld.

Both the courts below have placed reliance on the testimony of witnesses about apprehension of the Petitioner and seizure of offending articles from his possession. Though majority of witnesses happen to be the police personnels, they ipso facto cannot be considered incredible, for paucity of independent witnesses. However, regard being had to the fact that the Petitioner had suffered ordeal of protracted prosecution for six years and has remained in custody for majority period, for which he was sentenced, while upholding the finding of guilt, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in custody. However, the sentence of fine imposed on him would be payable within three months of receipt production of copy of this order and in case of failure, sentence imposed in lieu thereof, shall be operative and with this modification in sentence, this revision is dismissed.