Ashok @ Aswini Kumar Chabra vs State Of Orissa

D. Dash, J

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Code’) has assailed the judgment dated 04.07.2001, passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Sessions Trial Case No.131 of 1999, arising out of G.R. Case No.1818 of 1997, corresponding to Madhupatna P.S. Case No.423 of 1997 directing the confiscation of the seized rifle to the State.

Prosecution case is that on 22.10.1997 around 4 p.m. at the temple campus of Lord Panchamukhi Hanuman, the Appellant and another, namely, Nanu@Narendra Meheta in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of one Bilua@Pitabas Pradhan by means of a rifle when a marriage ceremony was going on within said temple premises.

None of the prosecution witnesses having supported the prosecution case during trial in implicating any of those accused persons including the present Appellant, who had faced the trial, the Trial Court finding no such material circumstance available from the evidence let in by the prosecution during the Trial acquitted the Appellant and the other under section 232 of the Code.

While doing so, insofar as the rifle, which had been seized in connection with the case during investigation, is concerned, an order for confiscation of the same to the State has been passed.

Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel for the Respondent-State.

Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgment passed by the Trial Court and have gone through the evidence on record.

Prosecution case is that said Pitabas met his death having received the gunshot injuries and it is said that there was firingat him. The incident having taken place on 22.10.1997 at 4 p.m., the information at the P.S. to that effect had been received around

50 p.m. and in course of investigation, it was around 10.30 p.m., the rifle had been seized on production of this Appellant (accused). The same being sent for examination of the Ballistic Expert, the report has come that the barrel wash of the rifle revealed that it had been used for firing in the recent past and then the rifle too was found to be in efficient working order to fire. This Appellant although has taken the defence of complete denial and false implication has offered absolutely no explanation as regards the said rifle which on his production was seized being used in recent past which has been proved. As per the licence which had been seized the retainer of the said rifle was named as Mahendra Singh, son of Ura Singh. It is also not stated that the licence in question was then valid. The Appellant has offered no explanation as regards user of the said rifle produced by him shortly before the seizure.

The Appellant (accused) has led no evidence to show that the rifle in question was all along in his custody even during the time when the occurrence is said to have taken place.

With the above facts and circumstances as have been emerged from the evidence recorded during the trial, this Court finds absolutely no such infirmity or illegality in the order of the Trial Court confiscating the said seized rifle to the State.

In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed.

.……..………………….