RAJU DUBEY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by Appellant against his conviction and sentence Under Section 25(1)(a) and Section 27 of the Arms Act whereby he has been awarded 2 years R.I. by Shri G.S. Thakur, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Datia, on 19.4.90.

(2.) The Appellant was tried Under Section 307 IPC and Section 25(1)(a) and Section 27 of the Arms Act with the allegation that on 16.9.89 at about 1.30 p.m. a meeting of Bhartiya Janta Party (in short B.J.P.) was organised at the residence of the complainant at Rajghat Colony Datia. The informant Radhakant Agrawal was the Vice-President of the party and Harihar Shrivastava was the General Secretary. They along with Ors. were present in the meeting. It is claimed that when the informant Radha Kant Agrawal came out of his house the Appellant fired with his country made pistol with the intention of killing him and causing injuries. The persons present in the meeting intervened. The Appellant gave Anr. fire on Radhakant which did not hit him. A telephonic message was given to the Police by Harihar Shrivastava and Police force arrived at the spot. An FIR was lodged by the informant Radhakant on the same day at 13.30 hours (Ex. P-10) which was written by PW 9 Angadsingh Kushwah and a case was registered Under Section 307 IPC/25/27 Arms Act. He went to the spot along with police force and saw that Raju was firing with katta on the crowd. He arrested him on the spot and prepared memo Ex. P-5. A country made katta was recovered. Three empty cartridges were also recovered from the spot. The country made pistol was Article A whereas empty cartridges were Articles B to D. He recorded statements of Munnalal, Harihar Nivas, Bhagwandas, Radhakant, Siyasharan and Kamta. He also prepared the site plan on the pointing out of Radhakant which is Ex. P-7. He had prepared a letter for sanction Under Section 25/27 Arms Act to the District Magistrate, Datia and sanction was given, vide Ex. P-3. He had sent the articles for examination to the ballastic expert and report is Ex. P-12. After completing investigation a charge-sheet was submitted.

(3.) The accused denied the charge. He also denied the recovery of country made pistol. The prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses and relied upon documents Ex. P-1 to P-12. The accused did not enter upon his defence. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and considering the material on record acquitted the accused Under Section 307 IPC but held guilty Under Section 25/27 Arms Act and sentenced him to 2 years R.I. under each count. Hence this appeal.