Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1219 (AP)

Ganapuram Ramaswamy v. State Of A. P.

2005-12-23

P.LAKSHMANA REDDY

body2005
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed against the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant in S. C. No. 895 of 2000, dated 18-5-2001 on the file of the I Additional assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal. ( 2 ) THE appellant herein is the sole accused in this sessions case and he will hereinafter be referred as accused in this judgment for the sake of convenience. ( 3 ) THE relevant facts in brief are as follows : ( 4 ) THE Inspector of Police, Nellikudur police Station filed the charge-sheet against the accused before the HI Additional Judicial first Class Magistrate, Parkal alleging, that on 30-1-1999 at about 2. 40 p. m. at nellikodur Cross Roads the accused was found in possession of bag containing 12 bore thapancha, grenades, catridge, small axe, party fund receipt book and party literature and those properties were seized from the possession of the accused in the presence of two mediators PWs. 4 and 5 and also in the presence of PWs. 2 and 3 the Head Constable and the Constable and the fire-arms were sent to the expert and the expert opined that they come under the arms Act and that the grenades were defused by the expert in the police station on 27-2-2000 and hence the accused has committed the offences punishable under sections 25 (l) (a) of Indian Arms Act and section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act on the said allegations, the learned magistrate took the case on file and issued process to the accused and after his appearance, the learned Magistrate furnished all the copies of documents proposed to be relied on by the prosecution and thereafter duly committed the case to the Court of session, Warangal by virtue of the committal order passed under Section 209 Cr. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as sessions case and made over the same to the I Additional Assistant Sessions judge, Warangal who after hearing the prosecution and the Counsel for the accused, framed charges under Sections 25 (l) (a) of indian Arms Act and Section 5 of the explosive Substances Act against the accused, read over and explained to him in telugu for which he pleaded not guilty of the charges and claimed to be tried. The learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge conducted trial during which the prosecution examined the then Inspector of Police as pw-1, the then Head Constable as PW-2, the then Constable as PW-3, the alleged mediators as PWs. 4 and 5 and the investigating Officer as PW-6 and exhibited exs:p-1 to P-8 and marked the receipt book as M. O. 1, partly literature as M. O. 2, shoulder bag as M. O. 3, small axe as M. O. 4, knife as M. O. 5, olive green uniform with cap as M. O. 6 and Bajaj Chetak Scooter as m. O. 7. ( 5 ) AFTER the prosecution evidence was closed, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr. P. C. wherein he described the incriminating evidence found against him as false. He further stated that while PW-1 was working as Sub-Inspector of Police in kesamudram Police Station in the year 1988 there was a quarrel between harijans and other villagers and in that regard he directly complained to the then Chief Minister that the police acted high-handedly and damaged his house and the Government ordered the police to get his house repaired immediately and accordingly the police got it repaired and keeping that grudge in mind PW-1 foisted this false case against him. The accused did not examine any witness on his behalf. His case is one of total denial. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the total denial of the accused, the learned Judge found the accused guilty of both the offences punishable under Section 25 (l) (a) of Indian arms Act and Section 5 of the Explosive substances Act, convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 25 (l) (a) of Indian Arms Act and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another five years and to pay fine of rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under section under Sections 25 (l) (a) of Indian arms Act and directed that both the sentences shall run consecutively. ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the said conviction and sentence the appellant preferred the present appeal contending that the judgment of the Trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the said conviction and sentence the appellant preferred the present appeal contending that the judgment of the Trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The learned Judge ought to have seen that except police witnesses, no other witnesses were examined to substantiate the case of the prosecution. The learned Judge ought to have believed the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and 6. The learned Judge ought not to have seen that the signatures of the panch witnesses were taken on blank papers and that the learned Judge failed to note that this case is foisted by the Inspector of police with a view to harass the accused who had complained against him about the illegal acts of the police during the year 1988-89. The learned Judge ought to have seen that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 25 (l) (a) of the indian Arms Act as the prosecution did not mark the alleged 12 bore thapancha, grenades and catridges alleged to have been seized from the scooter bearing No. ABM-1858 and the learned Judge ought to have seen that exs:p-6 and P-7 marked do not relate to. . . the explosives seized from the possession of the accused. For the aforesaid reasons the appellant contended that the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) DURING the course of hearing of the appeal, the learned Senior Counsel Sri c. Padmanabha Reddy, for the accused reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal. He submitted that the fire-arms said to have been seized from the possession of accused are not produced before the Court and the alleged expert who said to have defused the grenades in the police station after a period of more than one years has not been examined and no panchanama was prepared at the time of alleged defusing of the grenades and that there is no property as such and therefore the accused cannot be convicted for the alleged unlawful possession of fire-arms and explosive substances. He further submitted that the independent witnesses PWs. He further submitted that the independent witnesses PWs. 2 and 5 did not support the evidence of PW-1 and that both of them stated that their signatures were taken on blank papers in the police station and that the police personnel PWs. 2 and 3 did not state that fire-arms and explosive substances were recovered from the accused and they only spoke about the seizure of M. Os. l to 7 which are neither fire-arms nor explosive substances and therefore the only evidence that remains for consideration is the evidence of PW-1 and that his evidence is also not supported marking of the properties before the expert and therefore there is absolutely no evidence to base conviction either under the Arms act or under Explosive Substances Act. The learned Judge grossly erred in recording conviction against the accused and that the conviction and sentences are not sustainable in law. ( 9 ) ON the other hand, the learned public Prosecutor supported the Judgment of the Trial Court. ( 10 ) THE points that arise for determination in this appeal are :1. Whether the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant are sustainable in law ? 2. To what result ?point No. 1 : ( 11 ) THE charge against the accused is that on 30-1-1999 at about 2. 40 p. m. , while he was going on the scooter, the Inspector of Police-PW-1 and his staff waylaid and arrested him and at that time the accused was found in possession of fire-arms and explosive substances besides some other material viz. M. Os. 1 to 6. But, PW-1 stated that on 31-1-1999 at 2. 40 p. m. while he was camping at Kesamudram Police Station with the special party police, he received information that the accused who belong to cpi ML Praja Prathigathana Group was carrying fire-arms and explosives by going on a scooter and then himself, PWs. 2, 3 and other police personnel proceeded to nellikudur Cross Roads and hid themselves on either side of the road and the moment the scooter bearing No. ABM-1858 came there, they surrounded and detained the accused and at that time the accused was carrying a shoulder bag and then he sent pws. 2 and 3 who brought PWs. 4 and 5 and that in the presence of panch witnesses he seized M. Os. 2 and 3 who brought PWs. 4 and 5 and that in the presence of panch witnesses he seized M. Os. 1 to 5 and that he proceeded to Nellikudur Police Station along with the accused and seized property and reported to the Sub-Inspector of Police and gave report Ex:p-2 and handed over the property to the Sub-Inspector of Police. But, the two panch witnesses PWs. 4 and 5 who are village Administrative Officer and Sarpanch stated that the Police Nellikudur called them to the police station and asked them to put their signatures on blank papers and their signatures are marked as Exs:p-4 and P-5 respectively. They denied the suggestion that M. Os. l to 7 were recovered in their presence and that they signed on the panchanama after knowing the contents. PW-2-Head Constable and PW-3- police Constable stated that on 30-1-1999 at 3. 40 p. m. , they arrested the accused and seized M. Os. l to 6 and scooter M. 0. 7. They did not state that any fire-arms or explosive substances were seized from the possession of the accused. M. Os. 1 to 6 are neither fire-arms nor explosives. Therefore, there is absolutely no corroboration to the evidence of PW-1 to the effect that firearms and explosives were seized from the possession of the accused. Further the fire arms alleged to have been seized from the possession of the accused were not produced before the Court though the fire-arms expert report is marked. Even the Court Clerk is not examined to connect the fire-arms examined by the expert as the fire-arms alleged to have been seized from the possession of the accused. Therefore, there is absolutely no link between the fire-arms expert report and the alleged fire-arms seized from the possession of the accused. Even in respect of the grenades also, no such grenades were produced in the Court. Of course, it is stated that the explosives expert defused the grenades in the police station but the expert who defused the grenades in the police station is not examined. No panchanama was prepared at the time of defusing the grenades. There is absolutely no material to show that the grenades alleged to have been seized from the possession of the accused were the same grenades that were defused by the expert. PWs. No panchanama was prepared at the time of defusing the grenades. There is absolutely no material to show that the grenades alleged to have been seized from the possession of the accused were the same grenades that were defused by the expert. PWs. 2 to 5 did not state that the grenades were found in possession of the accused. Therefore, it is not at all desirable to place reliance on the self-serving testimony of PW-1. The learned trial Judge without scrutinizing the evidence on record simply recorded conviction against the accused for the serious offences on the simple ground that PWs. 1 to 3 are the police personnel and they have no reason to give false evidence against the accused. The learned Trial Judge failed to note that pws. 2 to 5 did not state anything incriminating against the accused in respect of the charges framed against the accused. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Judge are not sustainable in law and are liable to be set aside. Thus, this point is held accordingly. Point No. 2 : ( 12 ) IN THE RESULT, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant in S. C. No. 895 of 2000, dated 18-5-2001 on the file of the I additional Assistant Sessions Judge, warangal are hereby set aside and the appellant is found not guilty of the offences with which he is charged and accordingly the accused is acquitted. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him.