IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 556 of 2001()
1. JOHNY @ PAPPACHAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.SHAJI
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :07/10/2008
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.556 of 2001
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008.
ORDER
Revision petitioner and second accused faced trial in the court
of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mattannur for offence punishable
under Section 3 read with Section 25(1)(b)(a) of the Indian Arms Act for alleged,
unauthorised possession of ammunition and a country made fire arm on
1.7.1993. Learned Magistrate convicted revision petitioner and second accused
and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. The
matter was taken in appeal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted
second accused for want of evidence but, confirmed the conviction of revision
petitioner/first accused. Sentence was modified as rigorous imprisonment for
three months. Revision petitioner is still aggrieved and filed this revision.
2. There is no representation for revision petitioner at the
time of hearing. I heard learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Case is that on getting information about
unauthorised possession of fire arms and ammunition PW1, Sub Inspector and
party reached the house of PW6 where revision petitioner and second accused
were staying during the relevant time and on seeing the police party revision
Crl.R.P.No.556/2001
2
petitioner and second accused tried to escape from the scene. Both of them
were arrested at the spot. From the plastic bag carried by revision petitioner,
MO2 series (ammunition and other items) were seized as per Ext.P2. Further
case is that on the information given by second accused MO1 fire arm was
recovered as per Ext.P3. PW10 has given evidence that during the relevant
time revision petitioner and second accused were not having licence to possess
ammunition or arms. PW9 who examined MOs 1 and 2 series in the laboratory
certified vide Ext.P7 that MO1 is in working condition and is servicable. PW11,
Head Constable conducted investigation. On obtaining sanction, final report
was filed by PW8, Sub Inspector. It is contended in the revision petition that
evidence let in by the prosecution is neither reliable nor sufficient to warrant
conviction of revision petitioner.
4. PW1, Sub Inspector is the detecting officer. Himself
and PW2, Head Constable who claimed to have accompanied the former gave
evidence regarding alleged seizure of MO2 series from the possession of
revision petitioner on 1.7.1993 at about 4 p.m. Ext.P2 is the mahazar prepared
by PW1. PWs 3 and 5 are independent witnesses. Though they started by
saying that they had seen police arresting revision petitioner and second
accused from the house of George (PW6) on 1.7.1993, stated the time as at
about 7 p.m. and later changed the date as 2.7.1993. PW3 however, stated
about PW1 recovering MO1. PWs 3 and 4 were declared hostile to the
prosecution. In further examination by the law officer, PW3 stated that he had
Crl.R.P.No.556/2001
3
seen the police party questioning revision petitioner and second accused on
1.7.1993 at about 4 p.m. He claimed that he had told the Investigating Officer
that he saw Sub Inspector (PW1) checking the plastic bag carried by revision
petitioner and seizing ammunition. He also admitted signing Exts.P2 and P3 as
witness. PW5 stated that he witnessed the incident. According to him it was at
about 10 a.m. that MO1 was recovered (as per information given by second
accused). He was also declared unfriendly to the prosecution. In further
examination he admitted that he had told the Investigating Officer that he had
seen the Sub Inspector seizing the bag from the revision petitioner which
contained ammunition.
5. Contention advanced on behalf of revision petitioner
before learned Magistrate is that material objects were not properly packed or
sealed and that there was delay in material objects reaching in the court. The
further argument was that going by Exts.P3 and P7, the description regarding
the length of MO1 did not tally. Learned Magistrate observed after perusal of
Exts.P3 and P7 that the difference in the length of MO1 is only 0.5 cm. The
weapon was more properly and specifically examined at Forensic Science
Laboratory and hence a slight difference in length (0.5 cm.) that stated in Ext.P3
is not sufficient to warrant a conclusion that MO1 produced in court is not the
one seized as per Ext.P3. At any rate, that contention related to the second
accused who has already been acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge.
Crl.R.P.No.556/2001
4
6. So far as revision petitioner is concerned, there is
evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 5 that MO2 series were seized from his possession.
Learned Magistrate has observed that material objects were produced in court
within seven days. Assuming that there is slight delay, that did not warrant a
conclusion that material objects have been replaced or substituted. Ext.P7
states that MO2 series are ammunitions. Ext.P8 is the proceedings of the
District Collector, Kannur giving sanction to prosecute revision petitioner and
second accused. I have gone through the evidence and judgments of the courts
below and find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the revision
petitioner. Sentence as modified by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
requires no interference.
Resultantly, Revision Petition fails and it is dismissed. Bail
bond is cancelled.
Crl.M.P.No.2689 of 2001 shall stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
JUDGE.
cks
Crl.R.P.No.556/2001
5
Thomas P.Joseph, J.
Crl.R.P.No.556 of 2001
ORDER
7th October, 2008.