- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 21st December 1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau, in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 1997, whereby, the Appellate Court below has upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. It may be stated that the petitioner was found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 (1 -B)(a)/26 of theArms Act , by the Judgment dated 26.4.1997 passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, in G.R Case No. 1749 of 1991 / T.R No. 180 of 1997, and upon hearing on the point of sentence, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo R.I for two years for the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I for one year for the offence under Sections 25 (1 -B)(a)/26 of the Arms Act , and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. In the appeal, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offences under the Arms Act were set aside, but his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code were upheld by the learned Appellate Court below. The record shows that the petitioner had been made accused in Sadar P.S. Case No. 539 of 1991 for the offence under Sections 394/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(a)/26/35 of theArms Act on the allegation that on 30.10.1991, the petitioner along -with the other co -accused persons had committed robbery in a hotel room and when the accused persons were fleeing away, the petitioner was apprehended and he was produced before the police along -with the fire arm, at the place of occurrence itself. The other co -accused persons managed to flee away, who were named by the petitioner. On the basis of the information given by the informant, Kanhai Prasad Mathur, the F.I.R was lodged and the investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge -sheet against the petitioner and the other co -accused persons and after taking cognizance, the petitioner was put to trial along with the co -accused persons.
(3.) IN course of trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses including the informant, who was examined as P.W.4, and he has fully supported the prosecution case in his evidence. The informant also claimed to identify the accused persons who were on representation on the date of his examination. The other witnesses examining in this case are P.W.2, Surya Narayan Das and P.W.3, Surendra Prasad Singh who are the I.O and the other police officer. The Fardbeyan was proved by the P.W.2 Surya Narayan Das, who had recorded the same at the place of occurrence. P.W.1 and P.W.5 are the formal witnesses, who proved the formal FIR and the report of the Sergeant Major regarding the fire -arm.;