HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Click here to view full judgement.
P.K.CHANDA, J. -
(1.)THIS revisional application has been directed against the order dated 4 -3 -1975 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadia in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1974 dismissals the appeal against the judgment and order dated 6 -12 -1974 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Krishnagar, convicting the petitioner and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year Under Section 25 of the Arms Act and rigorous imprisonment for four years Under Section 27 of the said Act in Trial No. 31 of 1974 (G. RCase 1619/72). T. 276/74
(2.)THIS Court can interfere with the decision of the lower courts in exercise of revisional power only If there is miscarriage of justice due to mistake of law. We cannot reassess the value of the evidence and interfere with a finding of fact merely because we may think that the appreciation of the evidence of the lower courts is wrong and this Court should have reached a different conclusion of fact from what the courts below did,
The petitioner was arrested on 2 -8 -1972 by P. W. 1, Sub -Inspector of Police in connection with the Chapra P. S. Case No. 1 dated 4 -7 -1972 Under Sections 395 and 397 of the I. P. C. and on the very same date he made a statement to P. W. 1 in which he disclosed that he had kept concealed a sten gun and 39 cartridges in his gama field close to his house and he led P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 to that land and brought out the sten gun and cartridges. The seizure list (Ext. 2) was prepared and it is signed by the petitioner and also by P. Ws. 3, 4 and 5, his co -villagers. P. Ws. 3, 4 and 5 resiled from their statements before the Investigating Officer and alleged that they were not present when the sten gun and the cartridges were recovered. Apart from what he stated about the sten gun and the cartridges kept concealed in the gama field the petitioner also stated that he kept two DBBL Guns in the house of Fakir and when the police party went there during the absence of Fakir the petitioner brought out two DBBL Guns. The relevant seizure list is Ext. 2/1. Both the courts below were prepared to rely on the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 - the two police officers.
(3.)MR . Pal appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the courts below were not justified in relying on the evidence of the two police officers and convicting the petitioner on so serious charges. We are unable to accede to this contention. In Som Prokash v, State of Delhi, reported in : 1974CriLJ784 , the Supreme Court observed : We are aware of the exaggerated criticisms of the police force as a whole and of the reluctance of the framers of the Criminal P. C. to trust statements recorded by the police investigators but these are, partly at least, the hang -over of the British past.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.