Mangal Singh vs State of Punjab

J.S. Sekhon, J.

Mangal Singh, appellant, was tried and convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, on the charge under Section 25, Arms Act for the possession of spear without licence. He was awarded six months imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/ or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Feeling aggrieved with his conviction and sentence, he has come up in appeal.

In brief the facts of the prosecution case are that Mangal Singh, appellant, was arrested by A.S.I. Gurdip Singh on 8th of April, 1989, in the connected murder case against him under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. On interrogation, in the presence of Head Constable Harjit Singh, A.S.I. Gurdip Singh and Gurmail Singh, P.W., the accused suffered a disclosure statement, Exhibit PA, having kept concealed a spear, in his Tooriwala Kotha. Thereafter he led the police party to the said place and got recovered spear stained with blood. It was taken into possession after wrapping it in a sealing parcel and drawing its rough sketch, Exhibit PC. The accused could not produce any valid licence for the possession of spear and a case under Section 25, Arms Act was registered against the accused through a ruqa Exhibit PD at the police station. The Assistant SubInspector also prepared rough site plan of the spot besides recording statements of the witnesses. After completion of the investigation, the accused was arraigned for trial on such like allegations by submitting the charge sheet before the committing Court. This case was also committed to the Court of Session for trial, as the spear was alleged to be a weapon of offence in the connected murder case.

Before the trial Court in order to prove its above referred case the prosecution examined A.S.I. Gurdip Singh and Head Constable Harjit Singh while Gurmail Singh PW was given up as having been won over by the accused. Mangal Singh appellant set up the plea of denial simpliciter and false implication. He led no evidence in defence despite being called upon to do so by the trial Court.

The trial Court believing the above referred evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as referred above.

Mr. H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the possibility of planting the spear on the accused cannot be ruled out especially when Gurmail Singh, the only nonofficial witness was not examined by the prosecution. We find no force in this contention as the accused had got recovered spear from the heap of toori lying in his kotha. The evidence of these witnesses is consistent on the material aspects of the case. It is usual that the villagers do conceal the illicit weapons like spear in the heaps of toori because in their heart of hearts they are convincted that nobody would be able to detect it.

Consequently, there is nothing abnormal in the conduct of Mangal Singh in concealing the spear in the heap of toori lying in the kotha. Thus the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are well attracted in this case as the Investigator could not without the disclosure statement of the accused comprehend as to where he had concealed the spear. Usually, the villagers do not figure as witnesses in the heinous crimes like murder at the risk of incurring the wrath of accused party. The spear being the weapon of offence in the connected murder case, it appears that Gurmail Singh, P.W. had refused to support the prosecution case and was not examined by the prosecution. Consequently, the nonexamination of Gurmail Singh, PW. is not of much relevance in this case.

For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and it is ordered to be dismissed.