THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.129 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal under Section 378 (1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {Cr.P.C.}, is directed against the judgment dated 01.09.2008 in S.C.No.16 of 2008 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Amalapuram, whereunder and whereby, A1, A2, A5 and A7 were acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act {“the Act” for brevity} and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code {“IPC” for brevity}. 2. Brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the present appeal, are stated as follows. A-11 offered Rs.3,00,000/- to A-1 with an understanding to kill Bobbili Venkateswara Rao, who murdered his father and another. A-1 accepted the agreement. A-9 and A-10 prepared sketch to kill Sunkara Sudhakara Rao and Bobbili Venkatewara Rao. On 21.10.2005, A6 brought A-7 and A-8 to the house of A-1, where they conspired together, prepared a sketch to commit murders. A-1 arranged shelter from 21.10.2005, A-6 showed a country made revolver and two cartridges and handed over to A-1 with instructions to keep in his possession. On 22.10.2005, A4 came to the house of A-1, conspired with A-1, A6 to A8, prepared plan to murder Juttuga Bala Thrinadha Kumari and Moyala Adinarayana, who are rivals to A3 and A5 and offered Rs.45,000/- for that purpose. Parasa Srinivasa Rao and Korlapati Veera Swamy @ Boorayya witnessed the movements of A-1, A4 and A6 to A8. That on 28.10.2005, A-1 brought A6 to A8 to the room of A2 with the assistance of A4 and there, they conspired together to implement their plan. A2 and A5 also conspired with the remaining accused. Day-to-day, A-1 contacted A2 to A-11 on cell phones with regard to developments and informed his plans to them. Goluguri Laxmi witnessed the movements of A-1 to A8. That on 03.11.2005, A6 went to the house of A-1, took his revolver and an amount of Rs.1,000/-, approached A9 and showed country made revolver two rounds to him. On that, A9 requested A6 to arrange a magazine type revolver to him for his utility and also to kill his rival group and he paid Rs.2,000/- to A6 for purchasing revolver. On the next day, A2 and A3 went to Jonnada to the room of A2, where they did not find A6 to A8. They saw the newspaper on the next day and learnt that Vijayawada police arrested A7 and A8. On 06.11.2005, A2 and A3 approached A-1 at Ambajipeta and informed about the arrest of A7 and A8 and on that, A-1 took A2 and A3 to his room and supplied two weapons like Swords and while all of them were conspiring together in the room regarding the arrest of A7 and A8, the SI of Police and his staff conducted raid and arrested A1 to A3 and seized two swords and one knife and three cell phones from their possession under a cover of mahazar and registered a case in crime No.99 of 2005. Thereafter, police filed charge sheet. The case against A3, A4, A6 and A8 to A11 was split up in P.R.C.No.23 of 2007, which is pending. 3. When charges under Section 27 of the Act and under Section 120B IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused 1, 2, 5 and 7, they denied to have committed the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 besides case properties marking MOs.1 to 6. 5. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that there was no evidence to show criminal conspiracy or that the accused were found in possession of arms so as to punish them under Section 27 of the Act and accordingly, they were acquitted. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 6. Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A-1, A-2, A-5 and A-7 of the charges under Section 27 of the Act and under Section 120B IPC beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that MOs.1 to 3 were seized from the possession of the accused and therefore, the trial Court was not correct in acquitting the accused. 8. There is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent, unless contrary is proved. The presumption of innocence is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Unless a finding is shown to be improper or not based upon any admissible evidence, ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the same. There must be compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the order. 9. For the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC, when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act by illegal means, such an agreement is designated as criminal conspiracy. Except the presence of the accused in the house, when the police raided, absolutely there is no evidence to show that the accused conspired together so as to do an illegal act by illegal means. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC. 10. Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Act, it must be shown that recovery of MOs.1 to 3 must come within the definition of ‘Arms’ as defined in the Act. Arms are not sent to the Expert so as to know whether they come within the meaning and to punish the accused for the offence under Section 27 of the Act. Therefore, there are no compelling and substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment of the Court below. 11. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 27th January 2010 RRB