Criminal appeal against conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The High Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the recovery beyond doubt due to sealing flaws and non-examination of a public witness.
Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.10.2001 were set aside and the appellant was acquitted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
CRA No.1414-SB of 2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.1414-SB of 2001
Date of Decision : 01.08.2012
Swaran Singh
.......Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
.......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Ms. Rahish Pahwa Dudeja, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 17.10.2001, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, (hereinafter as 'the trial Court'), convicting the accused-appellant for committing offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period three years.
The brief facts of the case in hand, as recorded by the learned trial Court in para 2 of the impugned judgment, are reproduced as under:-
“2. Briefly stated the prosecution story happened to
-2-
CRA No.1414-SB of 2001
be that on 24.11.2000, a police party led by ASI Sukhwinder Singh was present near the power house of village Gaunsgarh in connection with investigation of case FIR No.165 dated 24.11.2000, under Sections 399/402 IPC which was registered against Swaran Singh and other co-accused. When the police party raided that place Swaran Singh and other co-accused tried to run away but Swaran Singh was apprehended by ASI Sukhwinder Singh with the help of other police officials. ASI Sukhwinder Singh conducted personal search of the accused Swaran Singh and recovered one country made pistol of 303 bore from right side fold of his pand. On unloading one live cartridge of same bore was recovered from pistol. The pistol and cartridge was sealed in a parcel by ASI Sukhwinder Singh with seal 'SS'. Seal after use was handed over to ASI Manjinder Singh. ASI Sukhwinder Singh prepared sketch of the pistol Ex.PA and took the cartridge and pistol into police possession vide recovery memo Ex.PB, the pistol being Ex.P1 and cartridge as Ex.P2. The said memo was attested by ASI Manjinder Singh and C. Jasbir Singh. On his further search Rs.20/- were recovered which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PD. ASI Sukhwinder Singh sent
-3-
CRA No.1414-SB of 2001
ruqa Ex.PC for registration of FIR and on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PC/1 was registered by ASI Surinder Singh. ASI Sukhwinder Singh prepared rought site plan Ex.PE........”
Charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act was framed against the accused-appellant to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses, viz., Prabhjit Singh, Ahlmad to District Magistrate, Ludhiana, as PW1; ASI Sukhwinder Singh as PW2; HC Darshan Singh as PW3; HC Harjit Singh as PW4; and ASI Manjinder Singh as PW5.
In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accusedappellant denied all the allegations of the prosecution case and pleaded false implication. He contended that the police had illegally detained him at CIA staff, Ludhiana, and thereafter, a false case was planted upon him. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence.
The learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, convicted the accused-appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him for the term as indicated in para 1 of this judgment. Hence the present appeal.
The appellant came up in this appeal which was admitted on
-4-
CRA No.1414-SB of 2001
13.12.2001.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was booked in this case. He was picked up by the CIA Staff, Ludhiana, on 22.11.2012 at 6.00 a.m. The FIR in this case was registered on 24.11.2002. The record of illicit weapon is shown to be effected from the possession of the appellant on 24.11.2002. She pointed out some discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which goes to the root of the case and makes the prosecution case doubtful.
The State counsel argued that the prosecution has fully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
As the appellant was allegedly apprehended in FIR No.165 of 24.11.2000, under Sections 399/402 IPC of Police Station Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana, there is every possibility that due to over zealousness of the Police, this recovery of illicit weapon might have been planted on him, in order to provide foundation to the main case. Vide separate judgments of even date, the appellant is being acquitted in above FIR No.165 dated 24.11.2000, under Sections 399/402 IPC.
The prosecution has failed to examine Bagga Singh, Lambardar of Village Boothgarh, a public witness, in this case, who was readily available with the police. There is no explanation as to why he was withheld in this case, thought his statement was recorded
-5-
CRA No.1414-SB of 2001
in the main case under Sections 399/402 IPC.
The observation of the learned trial Court that “If the accused had been roped in wrongly, he would not have kept quite” is erroneous in the facts and circumstances of the case. The prosecution has to stand on its own legs and no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused for not moving to the higher authorities.
Moreover, PW3, HC Darshan Singh, states that the recovered pistol and cartridges were not sealed and he handed over to HC Harjit Singh. At the time of his statement, the pistol and cartridges were not shown to him. So, this flaw is fatal to the prosecution.
The cumulative effect of all these circumstances is that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt. So, the appellant-accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, the judgment/order dated 17.10.2001, of conviction and sentence, are set aside and the accused-appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him.
01.08.2012 atulsethi
( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) JUDGE
Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt regarding the recovery of the pistol from the appellant.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Swaran Singh
State of Punjab
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
