CHANDRA PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three accused persons Including, the present appellant were tried for committing the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sectiosn 25(I-B) (a) and 27 of the Arms Act. The Vllth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi vide his judgment dated 30th June, 1997 in S.T. No. 487 of 1991 and 140 of 1992T.R. Nos. 6/91 and 64/92. acquitted the Other two accused persons namely Ram Nath Singh and Bhuneshwar Mochi including the present appellant from charge levelled against them under Sections 399/402 of the Indian Penal Code. But however, the appellant was convicted for committing the offence punishable under Sections 25(I-B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years under Section 25(I-B)(a) of the Arms Act and he was further convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years.

(2.) The prosecution cased in short is that while the informant was on duty at the barrier of Nal Kari Bridge,, at about 11 a.m. he heard hulla coming from the side of Benti Mines. Thereafter, the informant when to the place of occurrence along with other villagers and there he saw that 100 villagers were chasing about 9 to 10 persons, who were running away. While chasing those persons suddenly a loud sound was heard. Thereafter sound of firing was also heard , thereupon the informant and others ran towards that and chased those persons and ultimately two persons were caught. Those two persons disclosed their name as Chandra Pal Singh (appellant) and Hirua Munda. A country made pistol was recovered from the possession of Chandra Pal Singh (appellant) whereas two live Bombs were recovered from the possession of Hirua Munda. Those two persons further disclosed that they were called by one Ajoy Mahto for committing Bus Dacoity and they were planning to commit the said offence of Bus Dacoity. The appellant and another were brought to the police station along with fire arm recovered from the possession of the appellant and were handed over to the police. The Investigating Officer seized the fire arm i.e. Pistol which is stated to have been recovered in presence of the two witnesses. One of the seizure witness is P.W. 2, Nageshwar Mahto and other seizure witness has not been examined on behalf of the prosecution.

(3.) Altogether 14 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution in order to prove the charge, out of whom P.W. 5, Ashok Bharti is the informant and PW. 2, Nageshwar Mahto are seizure witnesses in whose presence firm arm i.e. pistol was seized which is said to have been recovered from the possession of the appellant. P.W. 13 is the Investigating Officer. Apart from the them, material witnesses are P.W. 1 Ranthu Ganjhu and P.W. 4, Dasarath Singh. From the evidence of P.W. 5, informant as well as from the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 13 it appears that the fact regarding recovery of fire arm i.e. the Pistol recovered from the possession of the appellant has been fully established and proved.