Veer Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The present criminal revision under Sections 397/401 of Cr.P.C. is being preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, District Ashoknagar in Criminal Appeal No.139/2016 while confirming the order dated 03.11.2016 passed in Case No.1810/2012 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashoknagar, whereby petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 25(1)(1B-A) of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to undergo one year RI with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.

As per the case of prosecution, a report was lodged by the complainant with the allegation that after getting information from the informer, complainant Police Officer reached at the informed place, there found one person coming through motorcycle bearing registration No.MP 33 MF 2088 and when he was stopped and searched, one country made gun 315 bore (कट्टा) was found along with live cartridges. He was asked to show the license, but he denied of the possession. Thereafter, he was arrested and country made gun (कट्टा) and motorcycle were seized.

Case was registered against the accused person vide Crime No.323/2012 for the offence under Section 25(1)(1B-A) of the Arms Act. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, where accused abjured his guilt.

Trial conducted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Ashoknagar, and evidence was led by the parties. During trial, prosecution produced six witnesses in his support and after recording the accused's statement and hearing the arguments, petitioner was convicted under Section 25(1)(1B-A) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI one year with fine of Rs.1000/- by passing the judgment dated 03.11.2016.

Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, whereby conviction has been recorded, appeal was preferred by the appellant (herein petitioner) before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar but met the same fate and appeal stood confirmed, therefore, instant criminal revision has been preferred.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the courts below committed grave error of law in not considering the plea of petitioner that false case has been registered against him. Prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. No independent witnesses were produced to support the prosecution and only pocket witness has been examined and independent witness namely Dilip (PW-3) did not support the story of prosecution and declared hostile. Statements of other witnesses are full of contradictions and omissions and therefore, their version cannot be accepted.

Learned counsel referred the testimony of Prem Singh Yadav (PW-4) armorer and submitted that his testimony does not show that he checked the arms and description. Similarly no identification mark or measurement on the article existed, which was said to be accepted, therefore, it could not have been established that contraband article was seized from the possession of the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed for acquittal of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner referred judgment passed by Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1998) 8 SCC 525 that if the gun 315 bore (कट्टा) and cartridges alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner did not have any number or some distinct mark on them and after seizure by the police they were not sealed then their identity are not established by the prosecution. He relied upon the judgment in the case of Vikas Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, CRR No.102/2012 decided 06.11.2012 to bring home the fact that no independent witness corroborated the evidence of seizure and no evidence that seized articles were sent for sanction to the District Magistrate.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and according to him, all witnesses have supported the prosecution story and the country made gun (कट्टा) has been seized from the possession of the petitioner. Therefore, he supported impugned judgment passed by the trial court as well as appellate court and prayed for dismissal of this criminal revision.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In the case in hand, trial court as well as appellate court considering the evidence in detail and passed the impugned judgment. Dalpat Singh (PW-1) was constable at Police Station Isagarh, District Ashoknagar and he narrated the story. He was eye witness who apprehended the petitioner on the spot along with country made gun 315 bore (कट्टा) and two live cartridges. Seizure memo (Ex.P/1) and arrest memo Ex.P/2 were prepared. The seizure memo (Ex.P/1) indicates that one country made gun 315 bore (कट्टा) alognwith two live cartridges as well as motorcycle (Hero Honda Company) bearing No.MP 33 MF 2088 were seized from the possession of the petitioner. Another witness namely Anil Kadam (PW-2) constable at Police Station Isagarh, District Ashoknagar also narrated the story in same fashion. Although independent witness namely Dilip (PW-3) did not support the prosecution of prosecution in categorical terms but he accepted the fact that he made signature over seizure memo (Ex.P/1) and arrest memo (Ex.P/2).

Material witness is Prem Singh, Armourer (A.S.I.) (PW-4) who mentioned the fact that gun 315 bore (कट्टा) along with two cartridges in a sealed cover with चपड़ी mark was received by him. He found the cartridges alive and gun 315 bore (कट्टा) in operational condition meaning thereby that gun 315 bore (कट्टा) could have fired cartridges. His testimony, nowhere dented by defence in any manner. Other witnesses treaded on same path and S.R. Bhagat, Sub-Inspector (PW-6) also supported the story of prosecution. When Investigating Officer and other witnesses have supported the story in specific terms and seizure memo and report of armourer Prem Singh Yadav (PW-4) are implicative qua the petitioner, then prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

So far as judgment and principles relied upon by the petitioner, same is not applicable in the present set of facts on the ground that Ex.P-4 and evidence of PW-4 if read in tendum, then it would be clear that he received gun (कट्टा) and cartridges in sealed packet over which seal (चपड़ी) was affixed and he narrated the fact in his examination-in-chief that after examination of gun and cartridges, he sealed that packet again and sent back. Therefore, it is not the case where sealed weapon was not sent for examination. He further referred the fact that constable Ramnivas, Police Station Isagarh, District Ashoknagar took the weapon for examination in sealed cover and his report (Ex.P-4) indicates that in the Crime No.323/2012 he gave his report and mentioned the name of person who carried the weapon and specifically mentioned the fact that it was in a sealed cover and sample of seal was also referred in the report (Ex.P-4). Therefore, this plea is not available to the petitioner in the present case. Similarly vide Ex.P-5 District Magistrate, DistrictAshoknagar gave sanction for prosecution of petitioner and referred in detail about the facts and to support the said letter of PW-5 on behalf of AG-III of Collector Office, District Ashoknagar also appeared in witness box on behalf of prosecution and established the facts about the sanction for prosecution and other facts. Therefore, judgments relied upon by the petitioner are of no avail in the given set of facts.

Trial Court as well as appellate court have considered the offence in detail therefore, scope of revision before this court constricts. No argument has been advanced to suggest that any perversity or procedural irregularities or impropriety has been caused. Even on the basis of legality also, case lacks merit. Although all witnesses are departmental witnesses but on close scrutiny, no variation or omission surfaced to give benefit of doubt to the accused. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, petitioner shall have to suffer incarceration as given by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court.

Resultantly, revision sans merit and is hereby dismissed.

The petitioner shall have to suffer conviction and sentence as referred above.

E-Copy/certified copy of this order be sent to trial Court and concerned authorities for information and compliance.