JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.10.2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 602/1997, whereby and whereunder the learned 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, FTC, Ranchi held the appellant guilty under Sections 307, 399, 402 IPC and 25(1-B)/26 of the Arms Act and convicted and sentenced him under Section 307 to undergo RI for ten years, Sections 399 and 402 to undergo RI for seven years each and under Sections 25(1-B)/26 to undergo RI for three years each. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the evening of 11th February, 1997 the informant P.C. Sinha, S.I., Lower Bazar, P.S. Ranchi was on duty for checking long route buses starting from Khadgarha, Ranchi bus stand, when he received a confidential information that about 5-6 criminals have assembled and making preparations to commit dacoity. It is further stated that on this information the informant along with some constables proceeded towards the place of occurrence, partly constructed house of Helen Hembram and found that all the criminals were sitting in the open Maidan and taking liquor. The informant ordered the police party to surround them, then criminals started firing upon the police party. The firing was returned by the police party and after this exchange of fire informant found one criminal lying with injury on the ground and this appellant was arrested on chase. According to the informant, the appellant disclosed that they have assembled there to commit dacoity and the dead criminal was Identified as Prabhat Verma. In the meantime many people assembled there and some arms lying alongwith dead body were recovered in presence of two witnesses. The appellant was also searched and one country made loaded pistol was recovered from his possession. The police further recovered partly filled bottle of English wine, another bottle of country made wine, some glasses and cigarette packets etc in presence of the witnesses and seizure lists were prepared. The informant recorded his own statement in his writing, on the basis of which Sadar Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 14/1997 was registered under Sections 399, 402, 307 IPC along with Sections 25(1-B)/26/35 of the Arms Act against two persons, the appellant and the deceased Prabhat Verma. 3. The informant recorded his own statement in his writing, on the basis of which Sadar Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 14/1997 was registered under Sections 399, 402, 307 IPC along with Sections 25(1-B)/26/35 of the Arms Act against two persons, the appellant and the deceased Prabhat Verma. 3. The case was investigated and finally charge sheet was submitted against the appellant showing co-accused Prabhat Verma dead. The case was committed for trial by the court of sessions and the trial court framed charges against the appellant on 12.12.1997 under Sections 307/34 and 399, 402 IPC alongwith Sections 25(1-B)/26 of the Arms Act. The trial court examined witnesses and finally came to the conclusion that the appellant was involved in the alleged offences and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 4. The present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned lower court has committed a mistake of fact and law. It is further submitted that the evidence available in the case record does not support the prosecution story. According to this memo of appeal, the seizure list witnesses have been declared hostile, the entire prosecution version that arms and other articles were seized by the police from the place of occurrence becomes doubtful. It is also asserted that the prosecution story itself is doubtful, as criminals may not sit in open Maidan and prepare to commit dacoity in the evening of 11.2.1997. It is also asserted that the identification of criminals in the light of candle is not possible. It is suggested that the police has committed murder of Prabhat Verma and the appellant being a witness of the occurrence has been implicated falsely in this case. According to this memo of appeal, all other witnesses being members of the raiding party should have been declared interested and reliance on their evidence is misconceived. It has also been highlighted that any confessional statement disclosing involvement of the appellant was made. It is also asserted that so-called recovered weapons were not produced before the trial court neither the blastic experts were examined to support the report that arms were effective and may have been used during the occurrence. The memo of appeal further criticizes the manner in which arms were kept in Malkhana. It is also asserted that so-called recovered weapons were not produced before the trial court neither the blastic experts were examined to support the report that arms were effective and may have been used during the occurrence. The memo of appeal further criticizes the manner in which arms were kept in Malkhana. Accordingly, this has been asserted that the prosecution has failed to prove the prosecution version beyond reasonable doubts and the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the charges. Learned Counsel further submitted that the period of sentences is excessive, which may be reduced. 5. Considered the points raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants along with materials on record. It appears that the prosecution story depends upon the statements of police personnel along with seized articles including the arms. In this context the prosecution has brought on record the seizure lists along with signatures of seizure list witnesses as Exts. 1 and 2 series. In support of this, PW1 Azad Khan, PW 2 Adward Tigga and PW 3 Deonarain Sah have been examined by the prosecution. They have not supported the prosecution case though they admitted that their signatures were available on the seizure list. According to them, they have signed over plain papers. 6. PW 4 is one of the constables, who has participated in the alleged raid on the criminals. He has supported the prosecution in details including the arrest of the appellant along with country made loaded pistol and recovery of articles seized in his presence, on which PW 1 and 2 have signed in his presence. This witness has been cross examined at length. Similarly PW 5 constable No. 688 and PW 6 R.K. Shukla have supported the prosecution version. Both of them have been cross examined at length in which they have denied that the appellant was falsely implicated by the police. PW 7 is the informant and PW 8 is Kamlesh Sharma, while PW 9 is I.O. of the case. PW 10 has formally proved the sanction for prosecution on the appellants under Arms Act. 7. The informant has supported his written report in details and proved the FIR and the seizure list in his writings as Exts. 3 and 4. PW 7 is the informant and PW 8 is Kamlesh Sharma, while PW 9 is I.O. of the case. PW 10 has formally proved the sanction for prosecution on the appellants under Arms Act. 7. The informant has supported his written report in details and proved the FIR and the seizure list in his writings as Exts. 3 and 4. He has been cross examined at length, in which he was suggested that the entire prosecution report was false and the appellant has been implicated in this case just because he was the eye witness of the killing of Prabhat Verma by him. The defence has tried to point out that the deseased criminal was hit by police bullets and the appellant was also assaulted by the police. He has also cross examined on the point of arrest and what arm he was carrying at that time. 8. PW 9, the I.O., has supported the prosecution case and pin-pointed the place of occurrence as Maidan in front of partly constructed house of Helen Hembram. He further proved the report of the forensic science laboratory as Exts. 6 and 6/1 and contradicted PWs 1, 2 and 3. He has admitted in cross examination that the informant has not taken his consent before going to the place of occurrence and he reached at the P.O. on getting information at about 8.15 PM. He has been cross examined at length regarding the point of recovery of the arms and cartridges and how it was kept in the Malkhana, His admission in para 33 and 34 of the case diary regarding the manner in which the seized arms were sent for forensic report has been criticized. He has admitted that the sanction order was issued by ADM, Ranchi to prosecute the appellant for possession of single barrel and double barrel country-made pistols. 9.. The appellant has been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied that he was involved in any case. He further denied that anything has been recovered from his possession. It has been contended that in absence of an independent witness, said to have assembled at the P.O., the prosecution version deserves to be rejected. The contention cannot be accepted in the fact that none is ready to stand in the witness dock even for his own cause. He further denied that anything has been recovered from his possession. It has been contended that in absence of an independent witness, said to have assembled at the P.O., the prosecution version deserves to be rejected. The contention cannot be accepted in the fact that none is ready to stand in the witness dock even for his own cause. In the present case where the appellant is said to be a criminal and particularly when seizure list witnesses have denied their presence at the time of seizure of the articles, it is not possible that any independent person may be ready to face the appellant in the court. This fact has been discussed by the learned trial court in para 16 of the judgment. The evidence of the witnesses discussed above shows that in the evening of 11.2.1997 there was an exchange of fire between the police party and the criminals, in which the appellant was arrested on the spot and at that time he was carrying a country-made fire arm. So far the sanction proved by ADM, Ranchi is concerned, vide para 19 of the judgment, sufficiently answers the criticism. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that even in the present case the sentences are severe and the appellant deserves to be treated leniently. According to the learned Counsel, he has already remained in custody for nearly four years, which may be sufficient in the present case. 11. Learned APP opposed this contention on the ground that the appellant was involved in criminal activities and was arrested from the spot alongwith country-made fire arm, from which firing was made on the police party and as such, no lenient view should be taken. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as materials on record, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 307, 399 and 402 IPC alongwith Sections 25(1-B)/26 of the Arms Act is affirmed. So far the reduction of sentence is concerned, I do not find any valid reason to reduce the sentence as the appellant has got criminal antecedent. Accordingly, the sentences are also confirmed. 13. In the result, I find no merit in this appeal, and is accordingly dismissed.