STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VISHAL VALLABHBHAI MADAM AAHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.05.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No.52/2002, whereby the respondentsoriginal accused have been acquitted of offences punishable under Sections25(1)(1A) and 25(1)(1AA) of the Arms Act, 1959.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that respondent No.1 was in Police custody, in connection with FIR being C.R.No.I128/1998, for offences under Sections 489(BC) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the prosecution that during the remand period of four days, respondent No.1 told the complainant, Police Inspector Mahendrasinh Jalamsinh Parmar (P.W.No.3), that he would like to say something and show something. The complainant, therefore, called two panch witnesses and went with the Police personnel and respondent No.1, to a place near a house named "Rajhans", where the accused started digging with his hands near a wall to the north of the veranda. He took out a rexine bag containing a 9MM automatic single section Pistol with a Magazine. The case property was seized and an offence was registered against the respondents, vide FIR being C.R.No.II71/1998, as respondent No.1 had no licence to hold the weapon, which was a prohibited one. It is the case of the prosecution that respondent No.1 had purchased the weapon from respondent No.2 who, in turn, had purchased it from respondent No.3. After necessary investigation, oral and documentary evidence was led by the prosecution. The respondents pleaded "not guilty" and claimed to be tried. Thus, the case was put to trial and on the basis of the evidence on record, the Trial Court recorded a finding of acquittal in respect of all three respondents, vide the impugned judgment.

(3.) MR .Himanshu K. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the Trial Court has erred in discarding the evidence of Mahendrasinh Jalamsinh Parmar, P.W.No.3, who is the complainant as well as the Investigating Officer, as there is no material on record to show that any prejudice has been caused to the accused during the investigation carried out by him. That, it is not the case of the defence that the Investigating Officer had nursed feelings of bias against the respondents. The evidence brought on record by the complainant, who has also investigated the case, is trustworthy and cogent and is fully supported by the Panchnama at Exhibit20. Though one panch witness has turned hostile and the other one could not be traced out, it would not mean that the deposition of the Investigating Officer should be disregarded in toto.