IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.330 of 2011 PAPPU KISHORE S/O- JWALA KISHORE, R/O- PURANI PARSA BAZAR, P.S.- PARSA BAZAR, DISTRICT- PATNA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP - ---------- 2 15.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner assails the appellate order dated 7.12.2010 passed on Cr. Appeal No. 78/2009/63/2010 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order of conviction dated 13.2.2009 passed by learned Trial Court in Tr. No. 166 of 2009 has been dismissed with modification in sentence. For an occurrence that had taken place on 11.8.2006, the petitioner was framed and put on trial for an accusation punishable under Sections 25(1-b)A and 26 of the Arms Act As per F.I.R., in course of checking, the petitioner was dotted by the police authority and was commanded to stop but he tried to flee away from the said place. A chase was offered. He was captivated and a loaded country made pistol was recovered from his possession. The prosecution, in order to prove the case, examined six P.Ws besides bringing on record relevant documents. Learned Trial Court found that although P.Ws. 5 and 6 who were witnesses of the seizure (Ext.1) did not support the 2 prosecution case but they had not denied their signatures/L.T.I. appearing thereon. The petitioner had also signed on Ext. 1 which was not denied. On a consideration of the materials on record, he was found and held guilty under aforesaid sections of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02 years under each head. A consolidated fine of Rs. 2,000/- having default clause was also inflicted. Aggrieved over the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction, petitioner preferred appeal. Learned Appellate Court reappraised the evidence on record and concurred with the findings of guilty recorded by the learned Trial Court. However, considering the circumstances appearing from record, the sentence imposed under Section 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act was/were reduced to R.I. for 01 years under each count. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. There is inconsistency in the evidence of other P.Ws who are police personnels. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, submits that there are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two Courts below which have not been demonstrated to be perverse or patently illegal. It appears from the Trial Court’s judgment as well as Appellate Court’s judgment that the witnesses on the 3 seizure have not denied their signatures/L.T.I. appearing on the seizure list/memo (Ext.1) It further appears that the rest of the witnesses have also supported the prosecution case. Minor contradictions, in my view, will not be fatal to the prosecution case. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the matter does not require any interference. The application is dismissed. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J)(.)