Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
Sandeep alias Sanju - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondents
CRA-S-2908-SB of 2012
Decided On : 28-10-2017
Arms Act - Conviction under Section 392 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 392, Arms Act Section 25(1B)(a) - The court discussed the evidence related to the recovery of the weapon, the absence of a permit or license, and the wrongful confinement of the victims. The judgment highlighted the admissibility of evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1972 and cited precedents for reducing the sentence based on the delay in trial and the appellant's personal circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for offences under Section 392 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, based on a prosecution case involving robbery, assault, and illegal possession of a firearm.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on evidence of recovery of the weapon, absence of permit or license, and wrongful confinement. The court also considered precedents for reducing the sentence due to trial delay and the appellant's personal circumstances.
Issues: The issues involved the sufficiency of evidence for the appellant's conviction, the admissibility of evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the appropriateness of the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the admissibility of evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1972, and considered precedents for reducing the sentence based on trial delay and the appellant's personal circumstances.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction was upheld, but the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, and the fine was upheld.
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
1. The appellant has faced trial in FIR No.304 dated 6.6.2010 registered at Police Station Chandani Bagh, Panipat under Sections 395, 397 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. Learned Additional Session Judge, Panipat vide judgment dated 13.8.2012 convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 392 IPC and Section 25 (1B) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959. Vide order dated 14.8.2012, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 392 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 25 of the Arms Act. It was ordered that the substantive sentence awarded shall run concurrently.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case as noted by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment are as under:-
“The FIR No.304 dated 6.6.2010 was registered at Police Station, Chandni Bagh, Panipat on the basis of the statement made by Ravi son of Dharam Pal resident of Village Luhari, District Panipat. It was stated by complainant that on 5.6.2010, he alongwith his servant Jawahar were sleeping on the roof of the Dera situated at Village Diwana after taking meals. At about 10.30/10/45 p.m, two boys came to the roof of the Dera and over powered him. He woke up and saw that four boys had over powered Jawahar. The two boys who over powered him were calling each other by the names Banti and Sunil. They gave him slaps and fits blows. The other four boys who had over-powered Jawahar were calling each other by the names Sandeep, Bhola, Jai Pal and Sunny. They tried to tie Jawahar with the cot. Jawahar raised a noise. One of the boys named Sandeep gave two blows on the head of Jawahar from the butt of country made pistol possessed by him. The other three boys gave leg and fist blows to Jawhar. He raised an alarm whereupon the boy named Bunty pointed a knife towards him. Thereafter Sandeep who was armed with country made pistol demanded diesel from him. He pleaded ignorance. The other two boys namely Sunil and Jai Pal snatched Rs.250/-, a mobile phone make Nokia 1209 no.9050326313 from the possession of Jawahar. The other two boys namely Sunny and Bhola started the tractor after connecting trolley with it. The boy namely Jai pal and Sandeep put the hammer and iron road (Bari) into the trolly. He along with Jawahar were confined in the garage. All the six accused persons fled away from the spot alongwith tractor-trolley. He alongwith Jawahar came out of the garage. He made a phone call to his brother Anil who came at the spot and got Jawahar medically examined at Civil Hospital, Panipat. He thus prayed for taking action against the accused persons.”
4. The challan was presented against the six accused in the court of CJM, Panipat. Section 207 Cr.P.C was complied with. The case was committed to learned Sessions Judge, Panipat vide order dated 15.9.2010.
5. All the six accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To support its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses.
7. The accused while recording their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations levelled against them and claimed themselves to be innocent.
8. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence vide its impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the accused (appellant) but all other 05 accused were acquitted.
9. Aggrieved against the said order and judgment, the present appeal has been filed.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of legal aid counsel appointed for the appellant, has argued that the sentence passed by the learned trial court is unsustainable as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. He further argued that the appellant was falsely implicated and the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of pistol and live cartridges from the possession of the appellant. He contended that PW-8 Ravi failed to identify any of the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
