AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 249 wordsB.A. Zaidi, J.
1 .An application by the father of the accused for return of his licensed S.B.B.L. Gun No. 4897 which is alleged to have been used by the accused Mohd. Umar in the murder of Kamla Kant about which the Sessions Trial No. 125/98 is pending, was rejected by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, and that is what, brings the father who is licence holder of the gun, before this Court.
Heard Shri S. K. Upadhyay, advocate for the revisionist and Additional Government Advocate for the State.
The main stay of the argument of the counsel for the revisionist is that cartridges recovered from the spot were sent alongwith the gun to the ballistic expert, and the report of the ballistic expert is that they were not fired from this gun.
The Learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that the gun is case property and needs to be preserved for the time being, till the case is decided.
We are wholly in agreement with the view of the learned Sessions Judge. There is evidence in the case that the gun was used in the commission of the crime, and if it is released, the gun can be tampered with in diverse ways, and it would, therefore, be more appropriate, to preserve the same from further use and interference till the case is decided.
We, therefore, feel disinclined to order return of the gun for the present.
Revision dismissed.