High Court · 2012

At the outset, it may be noted that Mrs. S. Khataniar, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae to appear for the appellant, could not be present due to her p ersonal difficulties. Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel on request of this Court vo lunteered to appear for the appellant and he has been allowed to argue for the a ppellant.

2. I have heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae f or the appellant and also Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. By the impugned judgment and order dated 15.3.2003 rendered by the lear 3. ned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi in Sessions Case No.116(DM)/2000, the app ellant was convicted under Section 25(1A) Arms Act and sentenced to suffer rigor ous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to suff er further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 15.7.1997, a police par ty from Dalgaon Police Station, led by Sub-Inspector of Police and Officer-in-Ch arge of the said police station, raided the house of the appellant in connection with Dalgaon P.S. Case No.26/1997 under Section 395 IPC in presence of some vil lage elders and Village Defence Party (V.D.P) Secretary and some members thereof . In the said raid, the police party recovered one handmade pistol from the poss ession (wearing apparels) of the appellant. Upon such recovery/seizure, the poli ce registered a case being Dalgaon P.S. Case No.181/1997 under Section 25(1)(a)/ 27 Arms Act and started investigation. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted agai 5. nst the appellant and on committal, the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangald oi framed charge under Section 25(1)(a)/27 Arms Act. The charge was read over a nd explained to the appellant and he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and d emanded trial. Accordingly, he stood the trial.

6. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses to bring home the charge against t he appellant. After examination of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC, the app ellant opted not to examine any witness in his defence. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as noted above.

7. I have carefully perused and reviewed the evidence on record. The prose cution examined 6 witnesses, out of whom, 3 witnesses namely, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P .W.3 are independent witnesses. P.W.1 is the VDP Secretary while P.W.2 and P.W.3 are members of the local VDP. In their evidence, they have stated that the poli ce raided the house of the appellant but they were not taken inside the house du ring house search/raid. They have stated that the police was inside the house an d he was brought out with a handmade pistol. But they have categorically stated that they were not taken inside the house to witness the proceeding of the house search/raid and as such, they did not see the actual act of recovery of the sai d handmade pistol from the physical possession of the appellant. All those indep endent witnesses, as they stated in their evidence, were asked to remain at the courtyard and accordingly, they were awaiting outside. P.W.4 is the Havildar of the Assam Police Task Force posted at Howly. He stated that as a police Armourer , he examined/tested the handmade pistol at the Central Arms Repairing Centre, D ergaon on 16.6.1998. He clearly stated that the said seized handmade pistol was not serviceable at the time of examination. He proved the report submitted by hi m, which was marked as Ext.2.

8. The other prosecution witnesses are policemen, who were present at the time of seizure. P.W.5 is the seizing officer while P.W.6 is the I/O. The I/O w as not present at the time of raid on the house and seizure of the handmade pist ol. From the aforesaid evidence, it has become very much clear that the ind 9. ependent witnesses were not taken inside the house at the time of search/raid on the house of the appellant. The said independent witnesses were awaiting at the courtyard as directed by the raiding police party and the said independent witn esses had no chance/occasion to witness the actual recovery of the pistol in que stion from the (cid:28)wearing apparels (cid:29) or possession of the appellant. There is noth ing in the evidence, apart from the evidence of said P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 that any of the villagers as independent witness was taken inside the house along th e policemen to observe the raid and alleged recovery of the handmade pistol from the possession of the appellant. It has also been made clear in the evidence th at the pistol in question was not serviceable at the time of its testing by the armourer. 10. As regards the raid and search, the procedure has been laid under Sectio n 104 and sub-section (4) of Section 100 CrPC, which provides that before making the search, the officer or other person about to make it, shall call upon two o r more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the plac e to be searched is situate or any other locality if no such inhabitants of the said locality is available or his willing to be a witness to the search, to atte nd and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of th em to do so. In the present case, the raiding police party, no doubt called some villagers including the members of the village defence party, but the search wa s not made in the house of the appellant in presence of the witnesses. It can, t herefore, be held that the pistol in question was seized in violation of the pro cedure prescribed under Sub-Sections (4) and (5) of Section 100 CrPC. As regards the charge under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, it is to b 11. e noted that the word (cid:28)arms (cid:29) has been defined under Section 2(1)(2)(1)(c) and a s per the said definition (cid:28)arms/weapon (cid:29) must be serviceable. As per definition u nder Section 2(1)(e) of the Arms Act an unserviceable handmade pistol in questio n does not fall within the meaning of firearms. It also does not come within th e meaning of prohibited arms within the meaning of Section 2(1)(i) as it was an unserviceable pistol.

12. From the above discussion, I hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove the recovery/seizure of the handmade pistol in question from the physi cal possession of the appellant inasmuch as no independent eye witness was prese nt at the time of actual seizure or recovery of the said handmade pistol. No exp lanation has been offered by the prosecution why any respectable villager or a V DP member was not taken inside appellant’s house during house search/raid and wh y the village elders and the VDP persons were kept waiting outside at the courty ard and what compelled the raiding police team to conduct the search/raid in abs ence of any independent witnesses. Moreover, since none other than the armourer from the police department testified and submitted report to the effect that the arm in question was not serviceable at all there is no scope for holding the ap pellant guilty under the Arms Act.

12.A. In view of the above, I am not inclined to subscribe to the finding and conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant, as has been done vide the impugned judgment and order. The prosecutio n failed to prove the charge against the appellant and accordingly, I hold that the appellant is entitled to acquittal. The appellant is thus, acquitted. The ap peal stands allowed. The State has stated that the appellant is on bail and as such, the bai

13. l bond stands cancelled. 14. Send down the records forthwith.

15. Before parting with the record, I acknowledge the able legal assistance rendered by Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae for the a ppellant. He be paid Rs.5,000/- from the Assam State Legal Services Authority as his legal fee.