PAPPE@ SUKHVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction passed by Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in ST No. 242/99 dated 15.4.2000 by which the appellant was convicted under section 25 (1-b) (a), read with section 3 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and fine of Rs. 100/- with default stipulation.

(2.) IN short the story of the prosecution is that on 15.1.1999 the appellant has annoyed with the complainant that he has not employed him alongwith co-accused (Acquitted) as driver in his truck and the appellant fired him by country-made gun which caused injuries to his neck. On hearing his cry Tesu alias Suresh (PW 7) and Virendra Singh (PW 6) came for rescue. On seeing them appellant and co-accused ran away from the spot. Report was lodged and after investigation charge sheet was filed and after trial appellant was convicted under section 25 (1-b) (a), read with section 3 of the Arms Act, while appellant and co-accused were acquitted for the charge under section 307 read with section 34 IPC.

(3.) SURENDRA Rai Sharma (PW 10) has deposed that on 16.1.1999 during the course of investigation on the basis of information given by the appellant the memorandum (Ex. P-7) was prepared in the presence of Suresh and Virendra and thereafter the articles were recovered vide memo Ex. P-8 in the presence of the witness. But both the witnesses have not corroborated the version of the Investigating Officer Surendra Rai Sharma (PW 10). Further it is stated by Surendra Rai Sharma (PW 10) that after the recovery the articles were seized on the spot and thereafter it was sent to D.R.P. line for investigation. But Brijmohan Sharma (PW 12) has not supported the version of Surendra Rai Sharma (PW 10) because in para No. 2 he admits that the articles were not in sealed cover and in the article there was no signature of the appellant or the witnesses. About seal of the article the evidence of Head Constable Santosh Singh (PW 3) was also not satisfactory, in view of para 3 of his statement. The sanction report was proved by Brijmohan Sharma (PW 12) which is Ex. P-16.