Full Judgment
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. Three accused persons including, the present appellant were tried for committing the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act. The VIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi vide his judgment dated 30th June, 1997 in S.T. No. 487 of 1991 and 140 of 1992 T.R. Nos. 6/91 and 64/92. acquitted the other two accused persons namely Ram Nath Singh and Bhuneshwar Mochi including the present appellant from charge levelled against them under Sections 399/402 of the Indian Penal Code. But however, the appellant was convicted for committing the offence punishable under Sections 25(1B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act and he was further convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and was further sentenced to undergo R.I, for 2 years.
2. The prosecution cased in short is that while the informant was on duty at the barrier of Nal Kari Bridge, at about 11 a.m. he heard hulla coming from the side of Benti Mines. Thereafter, the informant when to the place of occurrence along with other villagers and there he saw that 100 villagers were chasing about 9 to 10 persons, who were running away. While chasing those persons suddenly a loud sound was heard. Thereafter sound of firing was also heard , thereupon the informant and others ran towards that and chased those persons and ultimately two persons were caught. Those two persons disclosed their name as Chandra Pal Singh (appellant) and Hirua Munda. A country made pistol was recovered from the possession of Chandra Pal Singh (appellant) whereas two live Bombs were recovered from the possession of Hirua Munda. Those two persons further disclosed that they were called by one AJoy Mahto for committing Bus Dacoity and they were planning to commit the said offence of Bus Dacoity. The appellant and another were brought to the police station along with fire arm recovered from the possession of the appellant and were handed over to the police. The Investigating Officer seized the fire arm i.e. Pistol which is stated to have been recovered in presence of the two witnesses. One of the seizure witness is P.W. 2, Nageshwar Mahto and other seizure witness has not been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
3. Altogether 14 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution in order to prove the charge, out of whom P.W. 5, Ashok Bharti is the informant and PW. 2, Nageshwar Mahto are seizure witnesses in whose presence firm arm i.e. pistol was seized which is said to have been recovered from the possession of the appellant. P.W. 13 is the Investigating Officer, Apart from the them, material witnesses are P.W. 1 Ranthu Ganjhu and P.W. 4, Dasarath Singh. From the evidence of P.W. 5, informant as well as from the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 13 it appears that the fact regarding recovery of fire arm i.e. the Pistol recovered from the possession of the appellant has been fully established and proved.
4. So far as the use of the said fire arm i.e. pistol recovered from the possession of the appellant is concerned. I find that neither the informant, who is stated to have produced the appellant before the police nor any of the prosecution witness has come forward to say that in fact the said pistol recovered from the possession of the appellant was used by him.
5. In such a situation the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act passed by the trial Court against the appellant cannot be sustained. However, as the prosecution has successfully established the charge under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, therefore, I find that learned trial Court has rightly convicted him under the aforesaid Section. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the appellant has been awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for three years under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, I find that the ends of Justice would be met if the sentence awarded by the trial Court i.e. R.I. for three years is reduced to R.I. for one year.
6. In the result this appeal is partly allowed and conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court under Section 27 of the Arms Act are set aside. The conviction under Section 25(1B)(a) passed by the trial Court is hereby affirmed with the modification in sentence from three years to Rigorous Imprisonment to one year Rigorous Imprisonment. As the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are hereby cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve out the remaining period of sentence for the offence punishable under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms.