ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY the facts of the prosecution case are that on 15.5.1993 the appellant was arrested in F.I.R. No. 131 of 1993 Police Station, Sadar Bahadurgarh, for having committed the murder of his brother-in-law Raj Kumar. During the investigation of that case, the appellant was interrogated in the presence of Ram Kumar PW-2 and Dhara Singh PW (sic), SI Dhan Singh, PW4. On interrogation he made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed one Khokhri in the taand of his residential shop/house and he could get the same recovered. His disclosure statement Ex.PA was recorded. Thereafter, the appellant led the police party to the place of concealment and got recovered Khokhri Ex.P1 from the taand of his shop which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PB. Rough sketch of the Khokhri Ex.PC was prepared and a ruqa Ex.PD was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Ex.PB/1 was recorded. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was sent up to stand trial under Section 25 of the Arms Act for having kept in his possession one Khokhri without any permit or licence.

(2.) IN support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Mange Ram Inspector (Retd.), PW-2 Ram Kumar, PW-3 SI Raj Kumar and PW-4 SI Dhan Singh. The appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication in the murder case of Raj Kumar and stated that this case has been foisted on him at the instance of Ram Kumar PW, who happened to be Sub Inspector in Delhi Police. He, however, produced no evidence in defence.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant argued that Ram Kumar while appearing as PW-2 deposed that the appellant had already made the disclosure statement and the police had asked him to repeat the same statement in the presence of the witnesses and that such a statement cannot be said to be made voluntarily. The argument is without any merit. Such like minor discrepancies are bound to occur even in the evidence of truthful witnesses. No other contradiction worth the name could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the statements of PW-2 Ram Kumar and SI Dhan Singh PW-4, who have supported the prosecution story on all points. The recovery of Khokhri Ex.P1 is alleged to have taken place from the house of the appellant at his instance which is a valuable piece of evidence against the appellant. In our view this fact alone would be sufficient to hold that the appellant was in conscious possession of the Khokhri, sharp-edged weapon, without any permit or licence.