STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. GURDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated May 18, 1989 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala by which the respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY the prosecution story against the respondent is that on 26-3-1987, S. I. Tarsem Singh along with other police officials on a Government Jeep and a Metadoor was present in the area of Passiana in connection with Nakabandi. Then two persons were seen coming from the side of village Passiana on their respective vehicles i.e. Rajdoot motor cycle and Priya Scooter. On suspicion they were stopped. During search of Gurdeep Singh respondent a pistol 12 bore was recovered along with two live cartridges. The rough sketch of the pistol Ex. PA was prepared and it was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PB. Ruqa Ex. PC was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PC/1 was recorded. Rough site plan of the place of recovery Ex. PD was prepared at the spot with its correct marginal notes. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded and after completion of investigation, the challan of this case was put up in the court for trial. Finding a prima facie case against the accused respondent, charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) THERE is only the solitary statement of Inspector Tarsem Singh who appeared as PW-1. Although he has tried to corroborate the prosecution story but his evidence is not trustworthy as the same is not corroborated by any other evidence. On 26-3-1987 he along with many police officials held nakabandi in the area of Passiana. At time when the accused was apprehended, cyclists, pedestrians and trucks continued passing by from there. Inspector Tarsem Singh PW-1 did not ask anybody to become a witness. Since independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery and they have not been asked to become witnesses to the recovery, by PW-1, therefore, it is not safe to convict the respondent on the sole testimony of PW-1 who is an official witness. Since the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the respondent, we see no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.