® APPELLANT ACCUSED (In Jaill HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR [SB: Hon'ble IVIr.T.P.Sharnia.JJ Criminal Appeal No. 218/2002 Sushila alias Piiulbati alias Ajaimati, D/o Pando, Aged 22 years R/o Dangara P.S. Raoghat Distt. Bastar (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Bonur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.). Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, counsel.forthe appellant. Mr. Sushil Dubey, G.A. for the State/respondent. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OFCODE OF CRIMINAL PRQCEDURE, ORAL (JUDQMENTl (15.12 .2008) This appeal is directed against the judgment of ccnviction and order of sentence dated 08.12.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Jagdalpur, in Sessipns Trial No. 461/2000 convicting the accused/appellant forthe offences punishable under sections 25(1) cfthe Arms Act and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and pay fine of Rs.100 under the Arms Act and to undergo R.l. for 5 years under the Explosive Substances Act, with default stipulation. 2. The judgment is challenged on the ground that in the absence of any proof regarding the involvement of the accused in the crime in question, the court below has committed an illegality in convicting and sentencing her as mentioned above. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 17.08.2000 acting upon a secrete information that some Naxallites (Anti-social elements) are roaming near the Nayanar, the Police force went there and surrounded the alleged Naxallites. At the instance of the appellant, Naxallite uniform, electronic ^ detonator and the live cartridges were recovered vide Ex.P/2 on the basis of memorandum Ex.P/1. F.I.R. Ex. P/4 was registered and sanction for prosecution (Ex.P/5) was obtained. 4. After recording the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and completing the investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant in the Court of JMFC, Narayanpur, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Session from where learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar received the same on transfer for trial. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant the prosecution has examined four witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which she denied the material appearing against her in the prosecution case and pleaded her innocence andfalse implication in the case. 6. After hearingthe parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above. 7. Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the sentence part of the impugned judgment as the appellant has already completed the Sentence imposed on her.As regards conviction it is argued that the same being based on no clinching evidence, is liableto the set aside. 8. As regards possession of arm and explosive substance, PW-3 Yogendra Singh has categorically stated that after receiving the information they surrounded the area concerned and on the memorandum of the appellant the live cartridge and explosive substance was recovered at her instance vide Ex.P/2. The statement of PW-3 Yogendra Singh has been supported by PW-1 Virendra Kumar and PW-2 Dayaram. The defence has T^-) ^a^ ^s - cross-examined these witnesses but nothing has been elicited to discredit their testimony. 9. After closely examining the material available on record, 1 am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Couri: below in the judgment impugned are based on the material available on record. The judgment impugned does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in appeal. 10. Consequently, the appeal has no substance and accordingly it is herebydismissed. j Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge