AMRIK SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant was charged for offence under Section 307IPC for having injured one Joginder Kumar Chaddha with a country made revolver on 8th January, 2000. When the Appellant was arrested on 13th December, 2000, on his pointing out, a country made pistol was recovered and for this he was also charged for offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. As the public witnesses and even the injured witness PW2 Joginder Kumar Chaddha turned hostile, the Appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC.

(2.) THE learned Trial Court convicted the Appellant for the charge under Section 25 Arms Act on the basis of the testimony of the police officers PW7, Head Constable Shri Krishan and PW8 SI Gulab Singh and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. During the pendency of the present appeal the Appellant was involved in another case and thus, as per the learned counsel for the Appellant he has already undergone the sentence of one year awarded to him.

(3.) LEARNED APP for the State on the other hand contends that from the testimony of PW7 and 8 it is apparent that the Appellant was in conscious possession of the weapon of offence which he had concealed in the garbage and after his arrest pursuant to his disclosure at his instance the same was recovered from below the garbage. The CFSL report received in this regard clearly prove that the same was a country made pistol and was capable of firing. It is also stated that the telegram exhibited as Exhibit DW/1 appears to be an afterthought as the same has not been put to the witnesses and what has been put is that a telephone call was made. Moreover, the alleged telegram only states his prospective surrender. It is contended that there is no discrepancy in the testimony of the two witnesses and the testimony of police witnesses cannot be disbelieved merely because the public witnesses turned hostile.