Naresh vs State of Haryana

Inderjit Singh, J.—Appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment of conviction 28.03.2002 and order of sentence dated 30.03.2002, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Faridabad, vide which he has been held guilty for the commission of offence punishable u/s 25 of the Arms Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month under the aforesaid Act. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 29.01.1999, when Sub-Inspector Ravi Dutt alongwith other police official was present on Sohna turning Hathin in connection with detection of crime, he received a secret information that some persons, sitting in an old ''piyao'' on Hathin Road, were making preparation for looting of vehicles. Sub-Inspector Ravi Dutt formed two raiding parties, out of which one was headed by him and the other was headed by ASI Randhir Singh. After hearing the conversation which was going on between the accused, Sub-Inspector Ravi Dutt challenged them saying that they had been surrounded from all sides and they should surrender. When the accused tried to flee away, they were apprehended. On personal search of accused Naresh, one spring actuated knife Ex. P1 was recovered from the right pocket of his pant, which was taken into police possession vide recovery memo Ex. PD. Sketch of the said knife was also prepared. Written information was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PA/1 was registered. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After necessary investigation, challan against accused Naresh was presented before the Court.

On presentation of challan, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to accused u/s 207 Cr.P.C. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was chargesheeted for the commission of offence punishable u/s 25 of the Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW1 Head Constable Sarv Sukh, who was in the police party headed by Sub-Inspector Ravi Dutt. He deposed that during the investigation of the case u/s 399/402 IPC, accused Naresh was personally searched and a spring actuated knife was recovered from the right pocket of his pant which was taken into police possession after preparing sketch of the said knife. PW2 ASI Gulzari Lal (Retired) mainly deposed regarding registering of formal FIR Ex. PA/1 after receiving ruqa. PW3 Sub-Inspector Sadhu Ram mainly deposed regarding preparing of report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. PW4 Sub-Inspector Ravi Dutt, Investigating Officer of this case, mainly deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him in the present case.

At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the evidence of prosecution. The accused denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself as innocent.

No evidence was led in defence.

The trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused as stated above.

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that spring actuated knife was recovered from the accused during the investigation of the main case registered against him in case FIR No. 59 dated 29.01.1999, under Sections 399 and 402 IPC. This Court vide order dated 30.08.2010 has accepted the appeal and the appellant has been acquitted in the main case. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant contended that as per doctrine of stare decisis, the appellant in the present case is also entitled to acquittal. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that no sanction has been got from District Magistrate before proceeding with this case.

On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that the prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence. He further contended that there being no merit in the appeal it should be dismissed.

I have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully and have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned State counsel.

From the evidence on record, I find that it is an admitted fact that Criminal Appeal No. 698-SB of 2002, filed by appellant Naresh and others (co-accused) was accepted by this Court, vide judgment dated 30.08.2010 and appellant Naresh has been acquitted of the charges framed against him in the main case. When in the main case, the statements of same PWs have not been believed then in the present case registered u/s 25 of the Arms Act, the appellant cannot be convicted. The spring actuated knife has been recovered from the appellant during the investigation of the main case. Same Pws, who have been examined in the present case, have deposed in the main case but this Court has accepted the appeal and has acquitted the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to acquittal in the present case also. Secondly, neither any sanction to prosecute the appellant u/s 25 of the Arms Act has been obtained from the District Magistrate nor proved by the prosecution in this case and on this ground also, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is accepted. The appellant is acquitted of the charges as framed against him. His bail bond/surety bonds stand discharged.