Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1533 (PAT)

Kanchan Sharma v. State of Bihar

2012-11-06

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT S.A. Khan, J. The sole appellant has been made accused and found guilty for offence under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. He has also been convicted under Section 26(2) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bettiah, West Champaran, in Sessions Trial No. 147 of 1999. It may be noted that the appellant has remained in custody for 2 years, 7 months and 22 days during the pendency of this case. 2. The prosecution case is that the informant alongwith the police personnel raided the house and premises of the appellant and recovered one country made gun of .12 bore, one country made pistol of .12 bore and various half made parts of guns alongwith tools utilized for manufacturing of arms. It goes without saying that the appellant did not have a licence to open any such manufacturing unit. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the seizure list witnesses have turned hostile and do not support the factum of seizure and as such the trial court ought not to have convicted the appellant on the basis of the evidence of police witnesses. 4. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6 are the police personnel who had accompanied the informant at the time of making search in the premises of the appellant. All of them have supported the fact that country made arms and tools for manufacturing arms were recovered from the premises of the appellant. The informant P.W. 7 has produced the articles seized by him from the Malkhana and has pointed out the items that were recovered from the appellant’s shop cum house. It is, therefore, clear and cannot be doubted that the seizure was made from the appellant and despite the fact that seizure list witnesses have become hostile, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the articles were seized from the premises of the appellant. 5. In the fact and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction. 5. In the fact and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has remained in custody for a substantial period of time and at the time when the judgment was recorded it was noted by the trial court that the appellant has clean antecedent. Considering this aspect this Court is inclined to alter the sentence imposed by the trial court by holding that the period undergone would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. In addition, however, the appellant should pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) as fine to be deposited in the trial court within a period of four weeks of valid service of notice failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 6. The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid alteration of sentence. The appellant may utilize the web copy of this judgment for the purpose of depositing the fine within the aforesaid period prescribed by the Court. He will be relieved of the liability of the bail bond on payment of fine. Appeal dismissed.