AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anjana Prakash, J.—The Appellant has been convicted u/s 25(1b)(a) and 26(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to RI for three years by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Katihar in S.Tr. No. 74/89 by a judgment dated 14.06.1995.
The prosecution case is that on 14.06.1988 the informant chased some accused persons when they were suspected to be antisocial elements and the Appellant was apprehended along with another co-accused who died during trial and from the possession of the Appellant one DBBL gun and twelve live cartridges were recovered.
The prosecution in all examined four witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are formal in nature. P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are on the factum of the search and recovery of the gun. P.W. 4 has stated in his cross-examination that in fact a gun had been thrown on the ground whereafter it was seized and therefore he has substantially created a suspicion about the prosecution case that the gun was recovered from the possession of the Appellant.
There is only one other witness P.W. 3 who is on the point of search and recovery. Since he is a Police Officer and an interested witness, I am inclined to accept his version for convicting the Appellant without any further corroboration of his evidence who has been materially contradicted by P.W. 4.
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 14.06.1995 passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Katihar in S.Tr. No. 74/89 is set aside. The Appellant is discharged of the liability of his bail bond.