Liddu @ Salook Singh vs State of Haryana

J. S. Sekhon and A.S. Nehra, JJ.

The appellant was tried and convicted for an offence punishable under section 25 of the Arms Act by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. He was sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/or in default to make payment thereof to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence awarded in the other connected case. Feeling aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up in appeal.

In brief, the facts of the prosecution case are that the appellant was arrested in a murder case registered against him vide an First information Report No. 128 of 1990 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sohna by the Assistant Sub Inspector Chhote Lal on 24.5.1990. On interrogation, just after his arrest. in the presence of Om bir and Krishan witnesses, the accused disclosed having buried a spring knife after wrapping it in a newspaper in the northern eastern corner of the field of Varinder Singh, touching the passage. His statement Exhibit PD was recorded, Thereafter, he led the police party to the said place and got recovered a spring knife which was taken into possession after putting it in a sealed parcel. IA case under section 25 of the Arms Act was got registered at police station Sohna on that very day vide an First Information Report Exhibit PA/1.

After completion of investigation, the accused was arraigned for trial on such like allegations, by submitting his challan before the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Gurgaon, who committed the case against the accused to the Court of Sessions, as the spring knife was used as a weapon of offence in the above referred murder case,

Before the trial Court, in order to prove its above referred case, the prosecution examined Assistant Sub Inspector Chhote Lal PW3 only, besides examining Head Constable Mahabir Singh in order to prove the registration of the case and Assistant Sub Inspector Sheodan Singh to prove the submission of the final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ombir and Krishan nonofficial witnesses were given up as having been wonever by the accused.

The version of the accusedappellant before the trial Court in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was that of innocence and false implication in order to strengthen the connected murder cased. The accused, however, led no evidence in defence.

The trial Court believing the evidence of Assistant Sub Inspector Chhote Lal, convicted and sentenced the appellant as referred to above.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The evidence of Assistant Sub Inspector Chhote Lal alone, is not sufficient to sustain the conviction, especially when it looks highly improbable that the accused would keep the spring knife concealed as a prize possession at the risk of his creating evidence against himself qua his involvement in the connected murder case. On the other hand, he could destroy the same as it cannot be said to be that costly a weapon. Under these circumstances, nonexamination of nonofficial witnesses would certainly reflect upon the reliability of the evidence of Assistant Sub Inspector Chhote Lal, Consequently, no implicit reliance can be placed on his evidence, as he is certainly an interested in the success of the in main murder case registered against the accused.

9 For the foregoing reasons, the orders of conviction and sentence of the trial Court being not sustainable, are hereby set aside by accepting the appeal and acquitting the appellant of the charge under section 25 of the Arms Act. He be released from custody forthwith, if not required in any other case.