Major Singh S/O Sarman Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.2.2010 passed by

Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.190/1997, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34 of the

IPC with life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/with default stipulation, under Section 307 of the IPC in reference to injured Ajab Singh to undergo five

years RI with a fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation; under Section 307/34 of the IPC in relation to injured Santosh Singh to undergo five years RI

with a fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation; and, under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act to undergo three years RI with a fine of Rs.500/- with

default stipulation (on two counts). It was also directed that all the jail sentences of the appellant Major Singh Singh shall run concurrently.

It would be significant to mention here that coaccused of the same trial Sarman Singh was convicted and sentenced under Sections 302, 307 and

307/34 of the IPC vide judgment dated 14.10.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.

190/1997 and by the same above mentioned judgment co-accused Lakkha Singh was convicted and sentenced under Section 30 of the Arms Act and

the evidence relating to Sarman Singh and Lakkha Singh was recorded separately.

Prosecution's case in short is that on 12th May, 1997 at 17.00 hrs. Satnam Singh gave telephonic intimation at Police Station Maharajpura that his

cousin brothers Santosh Singh, Jagjeet Singh and Ajab Singh, residents of village Chakbehta have received firearm injuries caused by Sarman and his

son Major and Satnam Singh was giving telephonic intimation from Morar, Gwalior. On the same date of incident, entry (Ex.P/2) regarding receiving

of the above mentioned telephonic intimation was recorded in Sahna No. 387 of Rojnamcha.

Thereafter, SHO Bhanwar Singh Jadon (PW-10) after recording his departure in the Rojnamcha with police force by police vehicle reached to Police

Help Centre, situated at Square No.7, Morar. On 12th May, 1997 at 17=30 hrs. at the above mentioned Police Help Centre SHO Bhanwar Singh

Jadon recorded Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/8) on intimation given by injured Santosh Singh (PW-3) to the effect that in his village when boys of his family

were grazing buffaloes, then appellant Major gave beating to his nephew Jarman Singh (PW-11). Thereafter Gurupreet came to his house and

informed, then from house he with his Uncle Ajab Singh went to the spot and they instructed Major Singh and Jarman Singh (PW-11) not to quarrel.

Thereafter, Major Singh went to his house.

When complainant Santosh (PW-3) and his uncle Ajab Singh (PW-4) were returning from Gyan Singh's agricultural land to their house, in the

meanwhile complainant's another uncle Jagjeet Singh (since deceased) also came out in the field from his nearby situated house. By the time Jagjeet

Singh could reach near complainant, Sarman and Major Singh came from their house each having a 12 bore gun separately and asked the complainant

and his companion to stop. Thereafter, each of Sarman and Major Singh started firing shots from their separate guns. Â

Pellets  of  shot fired by Sarman caused injury on neck of Santosh. The pellets spread over from   the second

shot caused by Sarman hit on the neck, chest and abdomen of Jagjeet Singh and Jagjeet Singh immediately fell down. Thereafter Major Singh fired

shot from his gun, whose pellets caused injuries on waist, chest and left hand of Ajab Singh (PW-4) and Ajab Singh also fell down. By that time

Satnam Singh had reached on spot by motorcycle, who took complainant Santosh (PW-3) to above mentioned Police Help Centre by his motor bike.

Other injured Ajab Singh and Jaswant Singh were being taken to the hospital by complainant's other family members through a tractor. The incident

was also witnessed by complainant's aunt and Gurumeet Kaur (PW-8), wife of Jagjeet Singh.

After recording Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/8), it was sent from above mentioned centre to Police Station Maharajpura by a ConstableÂ

Chandrabhushan (PW-6) and on the same date on the basis of Dehati Nalishi, FIR (Ex.P/6) was registered at 18=12 hrs on the same day. Jagjeet

Singh succumbed to the injuries till his reaching to JA Hospital, Gwalior. On the date of incident other injured witnesses complainant Santosh Singh

(PW-3) and Ajab Singh (PW-4) were examined by Dr. A.K.Jain (PW-7), who recorded their separate MLCs. After completing formalities, the post-

mortem of the dead body of Jagjeet Singh was conducted by Dr. Madhup Kumar on 13th May, 1997, who recorded post-mortem report

(Ex.P/20). Â

Investigating Officer Bhanwar Singh Jadon (PW-10) on 13th May, 1997 at the instance of eyewitness Satnam Singh, prepared spot map (Ex.P/15)

and on the same date, i.e., 13th May, 1997 bloodstained soil and separately simple soil and four empty cartridges of 12 bore gun and two empty

cartridges of .315 bore were seized by Investigating Officer vide seizure memo (Ex. P/16). Sarman and Major were arrested on 15th May, 1997 by

common arrest memo (Ex.P/12). On 15th May, 1997, on the basis of disclosure statement (Ex.P/14), on production of a 12 bore single barrel gun from

the house of Lakkha Singh in his presence by Major, above mentioned gun and its licence issued in favour of Lakkha Singh were seized vide seizure

memo (Ex.P/13). On 15th May, 1997 a double barrel 12 bore gun with its arm licence issued in favour of Sarman Singh were seized vide seizure

memo (Ex.P/18) on production by appellant Sarman. Both seized sealed guns and other material were sent to FSL Sagar vide memo dated 28th June,

1997 of Superintendent of Police Gwalior, whose report (Ex.P/23) received later on.

After completing investigation, the charge sheet against all the three accused persons Sarman Singh, Major Singh and Lakkha Singh was filed

before the JMFC, Gwalior, who committed the arisen criminal case to the Additional Sessions Judge but in relating Sessions Trial No. 190/1997 on

2.3.1998 the trial Court ordered that the Principal Magistrate, Kishore Nyayalaya Gwalior by its order dated 18.2.1998 passed in Cri.M.J.C. No.

34/1997 found that Major Singh's age was below than 16 years and above mentioned order had attained finality, hence his trial was separated and

Public Prosecutor and relating S.H.O. were directed to proceed against Major Singh before the competent Kishore Nyayalaya, but thereafter vide

order dated 5th June, 2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No.103/1999, Eleventh Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior held Major Singh a major person,

hence his trial was again started before the Sessions Court and above mentioned order dated 5th June, 2002 passed by Eleventh Additional Sessions

Judge, Gwalior was affirmed by this Court vide order dated 21st April, 2006 passed in Criminal Revision No. 227/2002, whereby this Court held that

on the date of incident the age of Major Singh was more than 18 years.

In separate trial, the trial Court framed charges under Sections 302/34, 307, 307/34 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against

Major Singh. Major Singh abjured the guilt. In Major Singh's separate trial Arms Clerk Raj Bahadur Agarwal (PW-1), Head Constable Bhanwar

Singh (PW-2), complainant Santosh Singh (PW-3), Ajab Singh (PW-4), Jevendra Singh Bhadoriya (PW-5), Constable Chandrabhushan Sharma (PW-

6), Dr. A.K.Jain (PW-7), Gurumeet Kaur (PW-8), Inder Singh (PW-9), Investigating Officer Bhanwar Singh Jadon (PW-10), Jarman Singh (PW-11)

and Dr. V.S.Tomar (PW-12) were examined for prosecution. It was the defence of present appellant before the trial Court that due to prior enmity he

has been falsely implicated by the complainant. No any defence witness was examined. The trial Court, after hearing convicted and sentenced present

appellant as aforesaid.

Appearing counsel for the appellant tried to raise the question of age of the appellant Major Singh on the date of incident. It is true that if previously

such question was not raised before any Court then it could have been raised in appeal, but as pointed out earlier, this question was previously raised

before the lower court and on the basis of evidence produced before competent forum, it has been answered against the present appellant and on this

point the order dated 21st April, 2006 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 227/2002 attained finality as this Court's above mentioned order

was not challenged by the appellant by filing Special Leave to Appeal Petition before the Supreme Court. Hence, such already decided question could

not be raised and considered at this stage.

Before the trial Court complainant Santosh Singh (PW-3) and another Ajab Singh (PW-4) and Gurumeet Kaur (PW-8) wife of the deceased

Jagjeet Singh deposed as eye-witnesses in support of prosecution's case. Jarman Singh (PW-11) deposed regarding reason of quarrel started on the

date of incident that he and other Gurupreet were grazing their buffaloes in the agricultural land of Gyan Singh, then in relation to dispute regarding a

bamboo wood, appellant Major Singh had twisted his arm then after receiving intimation from his brother Gurupreet, his father Ajab Singh and Satnam

came to field of Gyan Singh where hid father scolded him and appellant also, thereafter appellant ran away towards his house.

Ajab Singh (PW-4) deposed that after receiving information at his house from Gurupreet, he with complainant Santosh Singh (PW-3) and

Gurupreet went to field of Gyan Singh and within few minutes Ranjeet Singh and his nephew Satnam Singh also came there and they scolded Jarman

Singh and Major Singh and thereafter Jarman Singh and Gurupreet Singh stayed in the field of Gyan Singh and he with Santosh Singh and Satnam was

returning to his house, then his brother Jagjeet Singh after coming out from his house was proceeding towards them, at the same point of time Major

Singh and Sarman Singh came with separate guns and told that they will kill them, thereafter Sarman Singh fired a shot from his gun over Santosh

Singh, whose pellets caused injuries to Santosh Singh and Sarman fired second shot from his gun, whose pellets caused injuries on chest, neck and

head of Jagjeet Singh and at the same time appellant Major Singh fired a shot from his gun, whose pellets caused injuries on his left hand, buttock and

left chest and left side of his neck and after receiving injuries Jagjeet Singh and he fell down and he became unconscious and regained senses in

hospital where he received information that his brother Jagjeet Singh expired and he remained hospitalised for about ten days. Complainant Santosh

Singh (PW-3), another injured and Gurumeet Kaur (PW-8) have substantially corroborated the evidence given by Ajab Singh (PW4).

Santosh Singh (PW-3) also deposed that after firing made by Major Singh and Sarman Singh on the spot, Satnam Singh came by his bike, who

took him by his bike to Square No.7, Morar at Police Outpost where police officials were present who were intimated and thereafter TI Bhanwar

Singh (PW-10) of Police Station Maharajpura came there, who scirbed his Dehati Nalishi Report (Ex.P/8) and he was also examined at hospital.

Head Constable, Bhanwar Singh (PW-2) deposed that on 12th May, 1997 at 17=00 hrs, he received telephonic intimation from Satnam Singh from

Morar that his cousin brother Santosh Singh, Jagjeet Singh and Ajab Singh have been assaulted by firing of firearms by Sarman Singh and his son and

in relation to received intimation he recorded entry at Sahna No. 387 of Rojnamcha of relating Police Station (Ex.P/2) and thereafter on his

information SHO Bhanwar Singh Jadon (PW-10) proceed with police force and police vehicle to Square No.7, Morar. Bhanwar Singh Jadon (PW-10)

deposed that after reaching at Square No.7, Morar at Police Help Centre where Santosh Singh (PW-3) and Satnam Singh met him where he recorded

Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/8) as narrated by Santosh Singh and he was intimated that other injured Jagjeet Singh and Ajab Singh have been taken to JA

Hospital, Gwalior and Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/8) was sent by him through Constable Chandrabhushan (PW-6) to Police Station Maharajpura where

Head Constable Bhanwar Singh (PW-2) recorded FIR (Ex.P/6) on the basis of received Dehati Nalishi. Bhanwar Singh Jadon (PW-10) also deposed

that thereafter he reached on scene of occurrence where Sarman Singh and Major were not available then he reached to JA Hospital and received

intimation that Jagjeet Singh expired. Then he prepared Inquest Memo (Ex.P/14) and submitted application for post mortem.

Bhanwar Singh Jadon (PW-10) deposed that on next day in morning he prepared spot map (Ex.P/15) at the instance of Satnam Singh and seized

blood stained soil and simple soil from the spot and four empty cartridges of 12 bore and two empty cartridges of 315 bore vide seizure memo

(Ex.P/16) and on 15.5.1997 he arrested Sarman Singh and his son Major Singh vide arrest memo (Ex.P/12).

It appears from the record that the prosecution remained unsuccessful in producing Dr. Madhup Kumar before the trial Court as witness, who

conducted autopsy of the deceased Jagjeet Singh on 13th May, 1997 and recorded his post mortem report (Ex.P/20), therefore, it appears that Dr.

V.S.Tomar (PW-12) was examined before the trial Court by the prosecution for proving the handwriting and signature of Dr. Madhup Kumar on post

mortem report (Ex.P/20). Dr. V.S.Tomar deposed that he is acquainted with the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Madhup Kumar, as he was

working with him in JA Hospital, Gwalior in the year 1996-97 but Dr. Tomar showed his inability to intimate about present place of posting of Dr.

Madhup Kumar. In crossexamination Dr. Tomar deposed that post mortem of Jagjeet Singh on 13.5.1997 was not conducted by Dr. Madhup Kumar

in his presence but it is also clear from the evidence of complainant Santosh Singh (PW-3), Ajab Singh (PW-4) and Gurumeet Kaur (PW8), wife of

the deceased that Jagjeet Singh had received pellet injuries by fired shot from a gun and succumbed to the injuries within few hours from the incident.

These facts are also recorded in Rojnamcha entry (Ex.P/2) at Maharajpura Police Station at 17=00 hours made on received telephonic intimation from

Satnam Singh, even prior to recording of Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/8) recorded by SHO Bhanwar Singh Jadon (PW-10) at 17=30 hours. Hence, it is

proved by evidence available on record that Jagjeet Singh met a homicidal death by firearm on the date of incident, i.e., 12th May, 1997.

The evidence of complainant Santosh Singh (PW-3) and another injured Ajab Singh (PW-4) regarding their receiving pellet injuries from fired shot

by separate firearms is corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. A.K.Jain (PW-7), who examined both these injured witnesses in the night on the date

of incident. It is clear from the evidence of Dr. A.K.Jain (PW-7) and his MLC (Ex.P/10) that on 12th May 1997 on the body of Ajab Singh, he had

found multiple abrasions with laceration of varying size 0.3 cm to 0.5 cm in diameter with charring of margins. It is clear from his evidence that on left

thigh, left groin, left buttock, left lateral iliac region, left lumber (back) region, left side of chest, left calvicular region, left arm and left elbow such

abrasions and lacerations were found by him and he advised for radiological examination of chest, abdomen, forearm and thigh of Ajab Singh and at

the time of medical examination his general condition was poor, so he also referred him for opinion of surgical specialist and all the injuries of Ajab

Singh were caused within six hours from his examination by firearm.

It is also clear from the evidence of Dr. A.K.Jain (PW-7) and his MLC (Ex.P/11) that on the same day on medical examination of complainant

Santosh Singh (PW-3) he found following injuries:-

(i) An abrasion with charring of margins of wound, size 0.5 cm. in diameter, placed over left mastoid region behind ear (pinna), whose radiological

examination was also advised;

(ii) An abrasion and laceration with charring of margins of wound, size 0.5 cms in diameter on interior aspect of neck;

(iii) An abrasion and laceration with charring of margins of wound, placed 3 cms. below the above mentioned second wound and radiological

examination of both these wounds was also advised by him;Â

(iv) An abrasion with charring of margins of wound placed on right forearm, 8 cm below the elbow.

Dr. A.K.Jain (PW-7) deposed that he had referred Santosh Singh to ENT Specialist and he was admitted in ENT Department and he opined all

the injuries of Santosh Singh (PW-3) were also caused within six hours of his examination by any firearm. Hence, the evidence of above mentioned

eye-witness is corroborated by medical evidence that complainant Santosh Singh (PW-3) and Ajab Singh (PW-4) also received gun shot injuries on

the date of incident.

Though there is no definite medical evidence on record that any of the injured persons complainant Santosh Singh (PW-3) and Ajab Singh (PW-4)

received any grievous injury, but it is clear that at the time of medical examination by Dr. A.K.Jain (PW7), the general condition of Ajab Singh was

poor and his dying declaration (Ex.D/3) recorded in the night on the date of incident was not filed by the prosecution with the charge sheet, but in

above mentioned separate trial of co-accused persons it was called by defence in cross-examination of Ajab Singh, hence it is clear that the condition

of Ajab Singh was considered by others as serious and in the same incident Jagjeet Singh received fatal injuries by firearms. Hence, it was clear that

the assailants were having common intention to cause murder of Jagjeet Singh, Santosh Singh and Ajab Singh.

It is clear from the spot map (Ex.P/15) prepared by Investigating Officer Bhanwar Singh Jadon (PW10) that in between northern Nala and

southern canal agricultural land of Gurubaksha Singh, father of the complainant Santosh Singh, is situated adjacent to northern Nala and on southern

side of Gurubaksha Singh's land, Ajab Singh's agricultural land is situated and from the spot map, it is clear that Gurubaksha Singh's house is also

situated in his above mentioned land and on eastern side of Gurubaksha Singh's land adjacent house of deceased Jagjeet Singh is situated and on

southern side of Jagjeet Singh's house his Khalihan is situated, wherein three mounds were installed. It is also clear that the houses of deceased

Jagjeet Singh and Gurubaksha Singh, father of the complainant, are adjacent to their lands, hence the presence of Gurumeet Kaur (PW-8), wife of the

deceased at the time of incident could not be doubted. It is also pleaded from the spot map and other seizure memo that four empty cartridges of 12

bore were found in the agricultural land of Gurubaksha Singh and from FSL report (Ex.P/23) it is established that out of these four empty cartridges of

12 bore, two were fired from the gun seized from Major Singh and one of 12 bore cartridge was fired from right barrel of double barrel 12 bore gun

seized from co-accused Sarman Singh. These facts are clear from the evidence of prosecution's eye-witnesses and also from the spot map that blood-

stained soil and simple soil were seized from the field of Ajab Singh. Hence, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that fires were made

by some unknown persons from behind of the mounds is destroyed by the ocular evidence of eye-witnesses and also by spot map (Ex.P/15). Hence, it

is clear that the deceased and both injured persons were fired from the front side.Â

Much emphasis has been given on the facts came in evidence that Gurubaksha Singh is having a licensed mouser gun and according to the spot

map and seizure memo, three empty cartridges were also found from the field of Ajab Singh, which were not sent to FSL, but it is clear that Major

Singh in his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC has not taken clear defence that anyone of the complainant party had fired on him and his

father Sarman Singh. Hence, this argument also appears to be meaningless, whereas firing of 12 bore cartridges by two different 12 bore guns is

clearly established by the FSL report (Ex.P/23).

Much emphasis has been given by the learned counsel for the appellant on minor contradictions or discrepancies appearing in the evidence of

eyewitnesses such as, who gave telephonic intimation from Square No.7 Morar to the Police Station Maharajpura, etc. but, it is well established that

such minor contradictions and discrepancies do not affect the core evidence of eye-witnesses. On this point, in the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai

Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1983 SC 753), in last line of para 5 of judgment, the Apex Court has observed as follows:-

“5. …... Overmuch importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious:-

(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is

replayed on the mental screen.

(2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an

element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.

(3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image

on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.

(4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall

the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.

(5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the

moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on

the timesense of individuals which varies from person to person.

(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span.

A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.

(7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination made by counsel and out of

nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious

mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and

honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him-Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment.

(8) Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses therefore cannot be annexed with undue

importance. More so when the all important ""probabilitiesfactor"" echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses.â€​

Complainant Santosh Singh (PW-3) admitted in cross-examination that after the incident the family of Major Singh had left the village Chakbehta

but he clearly denied the suggestion given by defence counsel that prior to lodging the report they have tried that agricultural land of the family of

Sarman Singh be delivered to them. There is no substantial suggestion given to the prosecution witness regarding prior enmity between the families of

complainant and present appellant.

Much emphasis has been given on the fact that in dying declaration (Ex.D/3) recorded in the night on the date of incident Ajab Singh (PW-4)

stated that a quarrel had occurred with five persons and three bullets hit him but in Ex.D/3 it has been clearly stated that only Sarman Singh and his

son Major Singh had fired on him. Ajab Singh in his crossexamination had denied from giving such dying declaration. This dying declaration has not

been proved by the relating doctor Atul Kumar Agarwal. Prior to this alleged dying declaration a telephonic message was received at Maharajpura at

17=00 hours by cousin brother Satnam Suingh that three persons received injuries due to firing by Sarman and his son Major. Same facts were

mentioned within few hours by Santosh Singh to Bhanwar Singh Jadon in Dehati Nalishi report (Ex.P/8). Hence, it could not be inferred that the

appellant and his father were falsely implicated in the crime. The evidence of eye-witnesses Santosh Singh (PW3), Ajab Singh (PW-4) and Gurumeet

Kaur (PW-8) is subtantially and mutually corroborated and is also corroborated by medical evidence and complainant Santosh Singh's evidence is

substantially corroborated by his Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/8) and prior to incident their appears no enmity between the families of complainant and

appellant. Hence, the evidence given by these eye-witnesses appears to be trustworthy and reliable.

It is clear from the evidence of Investigating Officer Bhanwar Singh Jadon (PW-10) that on 15th May 1997 he arrested Major Singh and his father

Sarman Singh vide arrest memo (Ex.P/12) and on disclosure statement (Ex.P/14) of present appellant Major Singh, recorded under Section 27 of the

Evidence Act later on he seized a 12 bore single barrel gun and its licence issued in favour of Lakkha Singh vide seizure memo (Ex.P/13). Though the

panch witness Inder Singh (PW-9) has not supported the evidence given by Investigating Officer regarding disclosure statement and seizure memo

and he was declared hostile, but he had clearly deposed that he knew Major Singh and his father Sarman Singh because Major Singh was visiting his

hotel regularly. The use of relating licensed gun of Lakkha Singh is proved by FSL report by comparison of impressions of the firing pin of recovered

empty cartridges on next morning from the date of incident by the Investigating Officer from test fires made by same gun in the laboratory.

Hence, though panch witness Inder Singh (PW-9) has not supported the evidence of Investigating Officer on this point, but due to above mentioned

material corroboration on the point of recovery of relating gun from Major Singh the evidence of Investigating Officer appears to be trustworthy.

Constable Jevendra Singh Bhadoriya (PW-5) has also brought the dispatch register of Police Station Maharajpura and deposed that counterfoil of

the FIR was sent to CJM Gwalior on 12.5.1997 after making an entry in the relating register at serial No.881 and as the Dak Book of the year 1997

has been destroyed later on in accordance with the rules, it could not be inferred that the counterfoil of the FIR was not sent timely to the relating

Magistrate.

Arms Clerk Raj Bahadur Agarwal (PW-1) has proved that in his presence the-then Additional District Magistrate Shri M.B.Ojha after perusing

the relating case diary and has granted signed sanction order (Ex.P/1) regarding prosecution of present appellant Major Singh in relation to the offence

punishable under the Arms Act and he has also proved his short signature on Ex.P/8. The use of seized licensed gun of Lakkha Singh by Major Singh

is established by FSL Report (Ex.P/23). Hence, it is clear that the charged offences under the Arms Act were also proved beyond reasonable doubt

against the present appellant.

In the aforesaid state of evidence available on record, in considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has considered the material evidence on

record in its entirety and on proper and legal appreciation and analysis of evidence has recorded finding of conviction of appellant. The trial Court's

finding does not suffer from any illegality, manifest error or perversity. Hence, no interference by this Court with the impugned judgment is warranted

regarding conviction of appellant in relation to above mentioned charged offence. The awarded sentence by the trial Court against the appellant also

appears to be just, proper and balanced. 29. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant Major Singh is dismissed and conviction and sentence of

appellant as recorded by the above mentioned trial Court is hereby affirmed.

The appellant Major Singh's jail sentence has been suspended by this Court and he is released on bail. He is directed to immediately surrender

before the trial Court without any delay so that he may be sent to jail for execution of remaining part of his jail sentence.

 A copy of the judgment along with the record be immediately sent back to the trial Court for information and compliance.