JAYENDRASINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed the present Criminal Appeal being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9.8.2004 passed by the Special Judge (Dacoity), Shivpuri, in Special Sessions Trial No.129/2003, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act read with Sections 11,13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dacoity Avam Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment of one year.

(2.) The brief facts of the case in short are that as per prosecution story on 27.8.2003 one Rajveer Singh was posted as Head Constable at police Station, Karera. On the direction of SHO, Karera, to verify the information registered as Rojnamacha Sanha No.1160/27.8.2003, he alongwith Constables Raghvendra Singh and Premlal Pande reached in the jungle of Machhawali Baghedhari, where they found one person carrying 12 bore single barrel loaded gun alongwith two live cartridges. They apprehended the said person. It is further mentioned that on enquiry the said person revealed his name as Jayendra Singh Rawat on whom the State of M.P. has declared reward. It is also mentioned that there was no licence for the said arm, hence, in front of Constables Raghvendra Singh and Premlal Pandey the gun and the cartridges were seized vide Ex.P./2. Ex.P/3 was the Panchnama of the incident. The appellant was arrested vide Ex.P/1 and after returning to the police Station at 21.45 hours entry was made in the Rojnamacha Sanha. Thereafter, FIR (Ex.P/6) was registered at Crime No.285/2003 under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act and the seized arm was sent for examination to the police line Shivpuri from where the report (Ex.P/5) of Arms Moharir was received, according to which the gun was in working condition and was capable of firing. Sanction was obtained from the District Magistrate vide Ex.P/4, statements of the witnesses were recorded and thereafter Challan was filed before the Court of Special Judge. The trial Court thereafter framed the aforesaid charges against the appellant which he denied and requested for trial.

(3.) The trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.