- (1.) The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 24.08.2010, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track CourtII, Howrah in Sessions Trial No. 57 of 2009 thereby convicting the appellant under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.
(2.) On 23.10.2006, Susanta Chatterjee, S.I. of Liluah Police Station, along with other police officials had been to Belgachia Bhagar near Sree Pally Unnayan Samity at about 7.00 A.M. to hold a raid and to apprehend one F.I.R. named accused in connection with Liluah Police Station Case No. 167 of 2006. When the police officials reached there to apprehend the F.I.R. named accused, Kiran Singh, he brought out an improvised country-made pipe-gun from his waist and attempted to fire towards Susanta Chatterjee, S.I. of Police. Before he could fire, other police officials caught hold Kiran Singh and take way the firearm from him. Kiran Singh could not produce any valid document in support of possession of such firearm. He was arrested then and there and the firearm was seized under seizure list. After returning back to the Police Station, S.I., Susanta Chatterjee lodged one First Information Report on the basis of which Liluah Police Station Case No. 168 of 2006 was started under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act against Kiran Singh. The case was investigated into and, ultimately, charge was filed. The appellant was arrayed to face the charges under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and, accordingly, trial commenced. In course of trial, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. The pipegun with live cartridge, recovered from the possession of the appellant, was sent to firearms Expert who had given a report stating therein that the arm and ammunition sent for examination in connection with Liluah Police Station Case No. 168 of 2006 dated 23.10.2006 was in order and fell under the purview of the Indian Arms Act and endanger for human life. The ammunition was live and endanger for human life. That report was admitted into evidence and marked exhibit-1 on behalf of the prosecution. Firearm and ammunition were placed before the Court and marked material exhibits. Seizure list was marked exhibit-4/1, Sketch map of the place of occurrence together with index has been marked exhibit-9, First Information Report was marked exhibit-7 and the Judicial Munshikhana order was also admitted into evidence and marked exhibit. 6 on behalf of the prosecution. No witness was examined on behalf of the appellant. No document was also filed by him in course of trial. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, oral and documentary, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution brought home the charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act and, accordingly, recorded judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. The learned Court did not accept the prosecution case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
(3.) Being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal has been preferred by Kiran Singh, mainly, on the following grounds: (a) that the learned Judge failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true and proper perspective; (b) that the learned trial Judge failed to take into consideration that no public witness was examined supporting the prosecution case of seizure of firearm from the possession of the appellant; (c) that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the nature of gun was not stated clearly by any of the witnesses; and (d) that the learned Judge relied on inadmissible evidences and recorded conviction, which is liable to be set aside. ;