TEJ SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by accused Tejsingh against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer, dated the 20th February, 1961, whereby he has been convicted under sec. 392IPC and sec.19(f) of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to two years and six months R. I. respectively.

(2.) The prosecution story against the appellant was that on 16th January 1960, one Panchu Bhil was going from his village, Sarwad, to his father - in -laws place at village Mewda. While he was on his way to Mewda, he met P. W. Debi Bhil and then both of them proceeded together in the latters cart. The story proceeds that when they had advanced a little further and had arrived near the boundary of village Bilia, appellant Tejsingh asked them to stop the cart. It is said that he came running to them and snatched away the gun which was in the possession of Panchu. Panchu tried to put up resistance but the appellant was able to snatch away the gun from him. According to the prosecution, Panchu received one injury on his back when he struggled with the appellant in order of retain his possession over the gun. After Panchu was deprived of his gun, he and Debi Bhil came back to their village, Sarwad, and lodged a report at the police station at about 5 P. M. The police registered a case under sec. 392 I.P.C. and recovered the gun from the possession of the appellant on the next day in the morning. After completing the investigation, the appellant was challaned in the court of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Kekri, for offences under sec. 394 I.P.C. and sec. 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act.

(3.) In the committing magistrates court the appellant denied having snatched the gun from Panchu or its recovery from his possession. His version was that when he was grazing his sheep at the outskirts of village Bilia, he saw one person bringing a cart towards the sheep and so he asked him not to injure them. That fellow, however, did not listen to him and advanced the cart with the result that the leg of one sheep was broken. The accused and his companions Gokul Gujar and Nanda Gujar then stopped him and asked him to give compensation for the injury caused to the sheep. That person promised to give compensation, but since he had no cash in hand he delivered the gun. According to the accused, he refused to take delivery of the gun, but his companions Gokul Gujar and Nanda Gujar took the gun, because that person told them that he would take away his gun in the evening after paying the compensation. That fellow returned in the evening with the Sub -Inspector to whom the gun was given by Gokul Gujar. Thus, according to the accused, the gun was given by the complainant himself to Gokul Gujar to assure him that he would come to the village in the evening and take it away after giving compensation for the injury caused to the sheep. The magistrate still thought that a prima facie case was made out against the accused and so he was committed to the court of the Sessions Judge, Ajmer. The case was, however, tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses in the trial court. The accused stuck to the same version which he had given in the committing magistrates court. The trial court came to the conclusion that the offences under sec. 392 I.P.C. and sec. 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act were proved against the accused and so he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.