BAGHEL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner -accused, Baghel Singh, was convicted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ -and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two months, vide judgment dated 25.10.2001. He preferred appeal against that conviction and sentence but the same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide judgment dated 19.9.2005. Now, the present revision petition has been preferred by him against that conviction and sentence.

(2.) HE was intercepted on 11.3.1994 by the police party headed by Vijay Kumar SI, SHO, which after joining Surjit Singh, PW -1, as an independent witness, was proceeding towards Berwala Kalan in connection with patrolling and detection of crime. Personal search was conducted by SI and one country made pistol 32 bore was recovered from the right dub of his paijama When that pistol was unloaded, one live cartridge was recovered. The SI prepared the rough sketch of the pistol and took that into possession, along with the live cartridge, vide Memo Ex.PA. He sent his ruqa Ex.PD to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PD/1 was recorded against the accused. He prepared the rough site plan Ex. PE of the place of recovery and on going back to the police station deposited the case property with Balwan Singh MHC, PW -5. On 20.3.1994, the pistol and the cartridge were sent to Hind Singh, PW -3 through Ram Pal ASI, PW -7, who after technically testing the same gave his report Ex. PC, that the pistol was fit for firing and the cartridge was a live cartridge. The relevant papers and the case property were sent to the District Magistrate, Sirsa, who accorded the sanction for the prosecution of the accused under Section 39 of the Act, vide order Ex. PW 6/A. After completion of the investigation, the challan was put in before the JMIC, Sirsa. The accused was charged for the offence under Section 25 of the Act. To prove his guilt prosecution examined Surjit Singh, PW -1, Ram Avtar SI, PW -2, Hind Singh, PW -3. Vijay Kumar, SHO. PW -4, Balwan Singh HC, PW -5, Ved Parkash, PW -6 and Ram Pal, PW -7. After the evidence was closed by the prosecution, the accused was examined by the trial court and his statement was recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure The incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him in order to enable him to explain the same. He denied all those circumstances and pleaded his false implication. He was called upon to enter on his defence but he did not produce any evidence in his defence.

(3.) IT has been argued by the counsel for the Petitioner that the prosecution case in the court was not supported by the independent witness and in the absence of corroboration by the independent witness, the conviction of the accused could not have recorded on the basis of the statements of the official witnesses, who have made contradictory statements in the court. The pistol and the cartridge, alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused, were never sealed at the spot by the Investigating Officer. There was opportunity with the Investigating Officer to join the other independent witnesses but they were not joined. The pistol was never tested by any expert and the test firing was not done. In the absence of any report of the expert and the test firing, it cannot be said that the article, so alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused, was an arm. According to him, in view of these submissions, the conviction and sentence of the accused are liable to be set aside. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(2) RCR(Criminal) 745, Sahib Singh v. State of Punjab : AIR 1997 SC 2417 and Chitwant Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1606.