Convictions upheld, but sentences reduced to the period already undergone and fines quashed.

On receiving information that alleged criminal Niranjan Sao and his associates had assembled near the Mankatha Railway Bridge, a police raiding party proceeded to the location. The police alleged that the accused persons attempted to flee on motorcycles and, after reaching the railway bridge, fired indiscriminately at the police party, resulting in cross-firing. Four accused persons, including the present appellants, were apprehended, while two others escaped. Country-made pistols and live and empty cartridges were allegedly recovered from the appellants.

The prosecution examined five witnesses, principally police personnel who were members of the raiding party, along with an arms expert and the Investigating Officer. Documentary evidence included seizure lists, the informant’s written statement, the charge-sheet, and the prosecution sanction order. The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 307 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 27 of the Arms Act, sentencing them to various terms of rigorous imprisonment and fines, with all sentences to run concurrently.

Whether the appellants’ convictions could be sustained on the testimony of police witnesses in the absence of independent public witnesses.

Whether the prosecution had proved the charges under Sections 307 and 149 of the IPC and Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 27 of the Arms Act beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether, notwithstanding affirmation of the conviction, the sentences should be reduced in view of the appellants’ period of custody and subsequent conduct.

The Court applied Section 307 of the IPC concerning attempt to murder, read with Section 149 of the IPC concerning liability of members of an unlawful assembly, and Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 27 of the Arms Act concerning unlawful possession, use and recovery of firearms and ammunition.

It applied the evidentiary principle that the testimony of police witnesses is not rendered inadmissible or unreliable merely because they are police personnel; their evidence may be acted upon if found credible and corroborated by the surrounding circumstances and documentary or material evidence.

The High Court rejected the appellants’ objection that the prosecution case should fail solely because its witnesses were police personnel. It found that P.Ws. 1 to 3, all members of the raiding party, consistently supported the prosecution version and corroborated one another regarding the armed encounter and apprehension of the accused.

The recovery of firearms and ammunition from the appellants, the seizure documents, the expert evidence and the Investigating Officer’s evidence further supported the prosecution case. On the cumulative assessment of this evidence, the Court held that the prosecution had proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt and found no basis to disturb the trial court’s conviction.

However, while maintaining the conviction, it considered the appellants’ custody for about three and a half years, the fact that the occurrence dated from 2015, and the absence of any subsequent complaint, and treated the period already undergone as sufficient punishment.

However, it modified the order of sentence dated 7 December 2018 by reducing the sentences to the period already undergone and quashed all fines. The appellants were discharged from the liability of their bail bonds, and the appeal and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.