Kuldip Singh vs State of Haryana

V.M. Jain, J.

This revision petition is against the judgments of courts below convicting the accusedpetitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo RI for 6 months and to pay fine Rs. 500/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months.

The facts in brief are that on 18.8.1984 at about 7.30 P.M., the police party headed by Inspector Sada Ram was present on G.T. Road, Panipat near Noorwala crossing when accused Kuldip Singh was seen coming from the side of village Noorwala and on seeing the police party, he retreated swiftly, upon which the police party got suspicions and apprehended him. From his personal search, he was found in possession of one country made pistol of .32 bore wrapped in a handkerchief alongwith three live cartridges of .32 bore. Since the accused had no licence or permit to possess the same, these were taken into the possession after preparing the sketch of the pistol and after these were made in two separate parcels, vide recovery memo Ex. PB. Rough site plan of the place of recovery was prepared and a rukka was sent to the Police Station on the basis of which, formal FIR under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against the accused. The accused was arrested. After completion of investigation and after obtaining the sanction of the District Magistrate, the accused was challaned under section 25 of the Arms Act. He was duly charged for the said offence. The prosecution led its evidence. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he denied the prosecution allegation against him and stated that he was innocent. In his deference, he examined his brotherinlaw (DW1 Dildar Singh). The learned Magistrate after hearing both the sides, convicted and sentenced the accusedpetitioners vide judgment dated 4.7.1987. Appeal filed by the accusedpetitioner was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide judgment dated 8.9.1987. Aggrieved against these judgments of the courts below, the accused filed the present revision petition in this court.

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the accusedpetitioner. However, the respondentState is represented by Shri Jhingan, DDA. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentState and have gone through the record with his help.

The main point taken in the grounds of revision on behalf of the accused petitioner is that the prosecution had failed to join any independent witness to witness the recovery proceedings, even though the recovery had taken place at the chowk on the G.T. Road and there were various discrepancies in the statement of the official witnesses. There is considerable force in this point taken on behalf of the accusedpetitioner. Even as per the Rukka, Ex. PC, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered in the Police Station, the police party headed by Inspector Sada Ram was present on the G.T. Road, Panipat near Noorwala crossing when the accused was apprehended and recovery effected from his person. Admittedly, the police party was on patrol duty. No independent witness was joined by the police party. As referred to above, the recovery had taken place on the G.T. Road at Noorwala crossing. Nothing has come on record to show as to why the police had failed to join independent witness to witness the recovery proceedings, especially when the alleged recovery took place on the G.T. Road near Noorwala crossing where there were various factories and many person were available. The nonjoining of any independent witness, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, would be sufficient to discard the case of the prosecution, especially when there were various discrepancies in the statements of various witnesses examined by the prosecution. PW1 SI Davinder Pal Singh had deposed that certain persons were coming and going on the road when the accused was apprehended, whereas PW3 Inspector Sada Ram had stated that no body was going on the road at that time. Further according to PW1, SI Davinder Pal Singh, it took three hours to complete the investigation, whereas according to PW3, Inspector Sada Ram, it took only one hour. Furthermore, according of PW1 Davinder Pal Singh, before effecting the search of the accused, no person was called from nearby factories, whereas according to PW3, Inspector Sada Ram, the factories were found to be closed. All these discrepancies, in my opinion, would assume importance considering that the police party had failed to join any independent witness to witness the recovery proceedings even though it was not difficult for the police party to join an independent witness to witness the recovery proceeding considering that the alleged recovery had taken place on the G.T. Road Panipat, near Noorwala crossing and there were factories nearby and people were found coming and going on the road at the time of alleged recovery.

For the reasons given above, in my opinion, it would not be safe to hold the accused guilty for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, I accept the present revision petition and set aside the judgments of the courts below and acquit the accusedpetitioner of the charge, framed against him.

Revision allowed.