Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This criminal revision application has been filed for setting aside the judgment dated 20.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2012, whereby the learned lower appellate court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal and uphold the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.06.2012 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat at Chaibasa in G.R. Case No. 114/2011. The learned trial court had convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B)a/35 and under Section 26(i)/35 of the Arms Act and under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years six months for offence under Section25(1-B)a/35 of Arms Act and fine of Rs. 1000/- and further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for conviction under Section 26(i)/35 Arms Act and further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for conviction under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Arguments of the petitioner
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the petitioner has been convicted only on the ground of confessional statement of the co-accused and there is no material whatsoever against the petitioner apart from such statement. He has also submitted that in absence of any further evidence against the petitioner, the petitioner could not have been convicted in the present case. The learned counsel has also submitted that there has been no seizure or recovery from the possession of the present petitioner. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Suresh vs. State of Haryana, 2018 18 SCC 654) and has referred to Para-50 in support of the aforesaid submission. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-50 of the aforesaid judgment has held as follows: - "50. Now we need to concentrate on the relevance of the alleged confessions of the co-accused made before Zile Singh (PW 16). In Periaswami Moopan, In re, Reilly, J. observed: (SCC OnLine Mad) "... where there is evidence against the co-accused sufficient, if believed, to support his conviction, then the kind of confession described in Section 30 may be thrown into the scale as an additional reason for believing that evidence." (emphasis supplied) Therefore, the aforesaid extra-judicial confession against the coaccused needs to be taken into consideration if at all it is one, only if other independent evidence on record have established the basic premise of the prosecution. The confession of the coaccused cannot be solely utilised to convict a person, when the surrounding circumstances are improbable and create suspicion (refer to Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar). As the confession of a co-accused is weak piece of evidence, we need to consider whether other circumstances prove the prosecution case." Arguments of the opposite party-State ;