AMARJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Amarjit Singh and Inderjit Singh sons of Karnail Singh son of Khushal Singh residents of Guhla, District Kurukshetra have filed the present appeal showing their grievance that the impugned order of confiscation of their two guns dated 15.6.19989 is bad and they are entitled to get back their gun. The present two appellants along with other five accused were booked in case bearing FIR No. 258 dated 31.8.1987 under Sections 302/307/324/326/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act by the concerned Police Station Ghula. All the accused including the present appellants were acquitted by the learned trial Court but while acquitting them, it was ordered that the case property (guns) be confisacted to the State. Para 41 of the judgment of the trial Court refers. Aggrieved with the said order of confiscation, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

(2.) The case of the appellants is that both the guns are licensed and they have used these guns for self defence. The other contention of the appellants is that even according to the report of Ballistic Expert only one gun was used in the incident and that the confiscation of the guns by the learned trial Court is uncalled for and they are entitled to get back the same.

(3.) I have gone through the evidence recorded by the trial Court, the disclosure statement allegedly made by Inderjit and Kulwant on 7.9.1987 and 8.9.1987 respectively which has been exhibited as PN and PO by the trial Court. I have also gone through the recovery memo relating to the gun of Inderjit Exhibit PN/1 and recovery memo relating to the gun of Kulwant Exhibited as PO/1 with the assistance of Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Assistant Advocate General for Haryana. Mr. Nehra has also taken me through the evidence of Krishan, Sub Inspector PW-8, who had recorded the statements of these two appellants on 7.9.1987 and 8.9.1987 and consequently had also got the guns recovered in pursuance of their disclosure statements."The perusal of the statement of Shri Krishan, Sub Inspector PW8 and the disclosure statement exhibit PN allegedly made by Inderjit shows that he was having a licensed gun at his house bearing No. 13596 purchased from one Khurmi Gun House along with licence bearing No. 38/Sukal/Nov.84 valid up to 18.11.1988. So far as the disclosure statement Exhibit PO is concerned, it does not talk of any licence gun relating to Kulwant appellant. Even PO/1 shows that in pursuance of disclosure statement exhibit PO a gun manufactured by one Shiva Gun Factory was recovered along with certain cartridges from the bed room of the house of Kulwant. The statement of PW-8 Inspector Krishan is also to this effect.