Vinod vs The State of Haryana

Amar Dutt, J.—This appeal has been filed by Vinod appellant to challenge the conviction and sentence recorded against him by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat on 20.4.2001 in case F.I.R.No.228 dated 20.6.1996 registered under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, in

Police Station City, Panipat.

Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 20.6.1996, the appellant was arrested by SI Krishan Pal and other police officials

during the investigation of case F.I.R.No.193 of 1996 under Sections 363/365/386/364-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station City,

Panipat when they were present near old truck union, Panipat. At the time of personal search one country made pistol of.12 bore pistol and two

live cartridges were recovered from the appellant. A rough sketch Ex.PA of the pistol was prepared by SI Krishan Pal. The pistol was taken into

possession through seizure memo Ex.PB. A ruqa Ex.PF was sent to the Police Station and on its basis formal FIR Ex.PF/2 was recorded. The

Investigating Officer also got the pistol tested from an Armour and after obtaining the requisite sanction of the District Magistrate a challan was filed

against the appellant for violation of the provisions of Section 25 of the Arms Act.

After the case was committed, a separate charge u/s 25 of the Arms Act was framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty.

In order to bring home charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined Sanjay Tayal PW1, Madan Lai Sethi PW2, HC Azad Singh

PW3, and SI Krishan Pal PW4 before closing its evidence.

When examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in prosecution

evidence against him, the appellant denied all the circumstances and asserted that he was falsely implicated in this case.

The trial Court after perusing the evidence and the record came to the conclusion that the case against the appellant for illegal possession of

pistol and two live cartridges was proved beyond reasonable doubt and after convicting him u/s 25 of the Arms Act sentenced him to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period which he has already undergone as under trial.

At the time of hearing arguments in the main appeal i.e. Crl.A.No.307-DB of 2001, no arguments were addressed on behalf of the appellant to

challenge the veracity of the evidence brought on the file in this separate trial. This was presumably on account of the fact that the sentence

awarded was so innocuous that even in case of dismissal of the appeal, the same would not, in any way, prejudice the appellant, as he would not

have to serve any additional imprisonment on account of his conviction, in spite of this fact, we have gone through the evidence and find that on

record the appellant has not been able to bring any material which would persuade us to discard the testimony of the witnesses examined in the

case.

Consequently, we have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction and sentence recorded by the Court below. Ordered

accordingly.