Sarabjit Singh vs State of Punjab

Hemant Gupta, J.—The challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangrur convicting Sarabjit Singh u/s 25 of the Arms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

The present appellant was also charged for offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide separate order in Criminal Appeal No.439-DB of 1998, the appellant has been acquitted of charge u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the matter regarding conviction of the appellant u/s 25 of the Arms Act is still required to be examined.

The case of the prosecution is that during the course of investigation of the case arising our of FIR No.35 dated 1.4.1994 under Sections 302, 392, 452 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. SI Rajinder Singh accompanied by other police officers arrested Sarabjit Singh. During his personal search by SI Rajinder Singh one 315 bore country made pistol and 9 live cartridges were recovered. The accused could not produce any licence. Consequently, FIR was registered after obtaining the sanction for the prosecution of the accused from the District Magistrate and the accused was challaned and charge-sheeted.

Prosecution examined Chander Hans Armour PWI, Hurbax Kaur, Clerk in the office of District Magistrate, Sangrur, PW2, ASI Jasbir Singh PW3 and SI Rajinder Singh, Investigating Officer, PW4.

The appellant in his statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the prosecution allegations.

Learned trial Court passed an order of conviction of the appellant holding that the recovery of pistol and the cartridges is proved to have been made from the accused. The said pistol was without licence and, therefore, offence u/s 25 of the Arms Act is proved.

We have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record of the case.

From the statements of PW3 and PW4, it is apparent that the pistol Ex.Pl and cartridges Exs.P2 to P9 were recovered from the accused vide recovery memo Ex.PC. The mere fact that no independent witness was associated, will not disprove the prosecution story. The police officers are competent witnesses. Their statements regarding the recovery of pistol and cartridges without any licence is reliable even if examined with care and caution. No infirmity is found in the said finding record by the trial Court.9. Consequently, the present appeal is devoid of any merit. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. We have no hesitation in affirming the findings recorded by the trial Court. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.