MOHANSINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 16 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 has been directed against the judgment dated 15/4/1988 passed by the Additional Judge, Designated court, Faridabad at Narnaul in TADA (P) Act Case No. 3 of 1988 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 3 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as TADA) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) The prosecution case was that on 25/10/1987 when Sub-Inspector, Baijit Singh, Public Witness 7 along with other police officials was on round for checking Railway Station they spotted the appellant sitting in the waiting hall of the Railway Station, Rewari and seeing police party started walking which raised suspicion. On personal search of the appellant one country-made 12 bore pistol Ext. P-l was recovered from the right side dub of his pant for which the appellant had no permit or licence. The said pistol was seized from the possession of the appellant. The Sub-Inspector Baijit Singh sent a rukka, Ext. PA to the Police Station, SRPS Rewari, which was received by ASI Virender Singh, Public Witness 1 on the basis of which he recorded formal FIR Ext. PA/i. The said pistol was examined by the Armourer Head Constable Chotu Ram, Public Witness 4 and on testing the said pistol he found it to be in working order as per his report Ext. PE. After obtaining the sanction Ext. PD accorded by the District Magistrate, Narnaul the appellant was sent up for trial before the Designated court. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant denied the allegation of recovery of the alleged pistol from his possession and stated that he was falsely implicated. The appellant also examined Lal Singh, DW 1, a member of the Village Panchayat of his village and one Prithi, DW 2 as defence witnesses. The learned trial judge accepted the prosecution evidence and, therefore, convicted and sentenced the appellant as noticed above.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no reliable evidence on record to support the conviction of the appellant yet learned trial judge has convicted the appellant without proper appreciation of the prosecution evidence by accepting the evidence of highly interested witnesses. He further submitted that though the incident is said to have occurred at a public place on a railway platform, Rewari where a number of independent public witnesses were available to be joined as witnesses for the search and recovery yet none of them were called to stand as witnesses and on the contrary one Hira Lal, Public Witness 5 was examined as a witness for search and seizure who is nothing but a chance witness. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the prosecution evidence suffers from various infirmities which rendered the prosecution story wholly doubtful on which no conviction can legitimately be based. It was also contended that the learned trial judge conveniently ignored the defence evidence adduced by the appellant for which there is no reasonable ground to reject the same.