Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1669 (PAT)

AMBO SHARMA v. STATE OF BIHAR

2012-12-11

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. The appellant has been found guilty under Sections 25 (1) (a), 25(1-b)A, 26 (i) and 26 (ii) of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, two years, two years and five years respectively. 2. The prosecution case has been instituted on the statement of PW 7 Md. Sujauddin. According to the First Information Report, he along with the Raiding Party was visiting different villages in order to arrest the accused of Mufassil Shivir Police Station Case No. 455 of 1998 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In course of their duty, they learnt that the appellant Ambo Sharma is running a mini-gun factory in village Mathar. Before reaching Mathar, they had also conducted raids at Tikarampur and some other villages. On reaching Mathar, they stopped their jeep at some distance and entered into the house of Ambo Sharma, which was situated in the middle of the village and found several items which were utilized for the purpose of manufacturing illegal arms. At the time of raid, two persons ran away from the hut of Ambo Sharma, who were caught hold of on chase by the Raiding Party and a pistol was recovered from each of them. The seizure was prepared and thereafter the First Information Report was instituted. 3. At the outset, it may be stated that the seizure list witnesses, although they have admitted their signatures on the seizure list, claimed that the seizure was not made in their presence and as such, PW 2 Uday Kumar Mandal and PW 4 Arun Yadav have been declared as hostile witnesses. PW 1 Yogendra Mandal, PW 3 Mahendra Das, PW 5 Premchand Yadav, PW 6 Praphullit Kujur, PW 7 Md. Sujauddin (informant) and PW 8 Prembir Jha (Investigating Officer) are witnesses with respect to the actual raid. Out of the witnesses aforesaid, it is stated that PWs 3, 6 and 8 would be actual persons who had entered into the hut of the appellant and seized illegal arms. The rest of the witnesses were present at the place of occurrence and had surrounded the house of Ambo Sharma while their Officers were conducting the search. This aspect of the matter is supported by PWs 1, 5 and 8, the Investigating Officer who was present at the place of occurrence. The rest of the witnesses were present at the place of occurrence and had surrounded the house of Ambo Sharma while their Officers were conducting the search. This aspect of the matter is supported by PWs 1, 5 and 8, the Investigating Officer who was present at the place of occurrence. There is no material in their cross-examinations, which would lead this Court to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses. It is admitted by all the witnesses that the house/hut of the appellant was a temporary construction i.e. it was a thatched room made of straw, which is the spot from where the recovery was made. 4. PW 3 Mahendra Das claims that he was present at the time when the raid was made, he remained at the door of the house while the informant was searching the house. Thereafter, he along with the informant prepared the seizure list of the seized articles from the place of occurrence. 5. PW 6 Praphullit Kujur has also supported the prosecution version and has stated that he had seized the articles. The defence has cross-examined this witness in some details and has submitted that the cross-examination reveal that there are certain contradictions in the manner in which the raid was conducted. It has been pointed out by the Counsel for the appellant that the witnesses do not remember the house that they had raided, while they were conducting the raid at Tikarampur, they do not remember the time it took them at village Tikarampur, they have not disclosed the source of information from where they learnt that Ambo Sharma had stored illegal arms and other tools utilized for manufacturing illegal arms. It has been stated that they learnt by a secret informer that there is a mini-gun factory in the house of Ambo Sharma and that he indulges in selling these illegal arms. Great pains have been taken on behalf of the defence to show that the house which was searched did not belong to Ambo Sharma, which in the opinion of this Court, has not been proved by the witnesses. Counsel for the appellant relies on the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which the appellant has specifically stated that the raid was not made in his house. Counsel for the appellant relies on the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which the appellant has specifically stated that the raid was not made in his house. A vague suggestion has been given that the appellant has been made accused at the instance of the Sarpanch, but has not disclosed the reasons, as to why Sarpanch would implicate the appellant in a case, has not been pointed out during the evidence. The statements of DWs 1 and 2 indicate that the house of Ambo Sharma was not searched would have no importance as in the cross-examination, it is stated by DW 1 that the police had come to the house of Ambo Sharma. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that the contradictions of the defence taken on behalf of the appellant is correct. Lastly, Counsel for the appellant submits that it is admitted by all the witnesses i.e. PW 1 at paragraph 7, PW 8 at paragraph 14 and PW 7 at paragraph 11 that the house of the appellant was made of ‘Phoos’. It is argued that under the circumstances, it cannot be believed that that appellant could be lighting a chimney, which is utilized to make barrels for pistols, revolvers and pellets as the house could at any instant, catch fire and there is a possibility of the entire ‘tola’ being exposed to the danger of catching fire, which only had thatched huts. It is also pointed out that after the seizure list was prepared, the informant had not sealed the articles seized and as such, it cannot be said that the articles produced and marked as Exhibits 2/1 to 15, were the articles seized from the house of Ambo Sharma. The informant has given an explanation as to why he did not put a seal by stating that at the time of search, he was not carrying a seal, besides which, it cannot be denied that the appellant along with one other was apprehended with a pistol. It also cannot be denied that the articles seized are utilized for manufacturing illegal arms. 7. It also cannot be denied that the articles seized are utilized for manufacturing illegal arms. 7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court finds that the judgment of the Trial Court, which has gone into some details regarding the statements made by the witnesses, is in accordance with law and Counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any contradiction which would lead this Court to disbelieve the evidence. Minor contradictions regarding time etc. would not entitle the appellants for an order of acquittal. 8. In the result, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the judgment impugned. This appeal is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to issue conviction warrant against the appellant to serve rest of the sentence. Appeal dismissed.