The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for independent witnesses and corroborating evidence in cases involving the recovery of weapons and confessional statements made in police custody.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral). - The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 13.07.2007, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Jind whereby the appellant has been held guilty and sentenced under Section 25 of the Arms Act, to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. It is pertinent to notice that apart from the appellant-Sandeep, 2 other accused, Subhash and Kuldeep were also held guilty and convicted and it has been informed that no appeal has been preferred by them.

2. The Trial Court had tried 9 persons who had faced trial as accused in FIR No.88/2005 dated 02.06.2005, registered under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149 & 216 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act for the offences under IPC whereas conviction has been recorded against the present appellant, Subhash and Kuldeep on account of the fact that there was sufficient evidence against them since one pistol of .315 bore along with one live cartridge and one empty cartridge were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PV/1, in pursuance of the disclosure statement(Ex.PM). Similarly, against Subhash and Kuldeep also, recovery of one .315 pistol and cartridges had also been effected. Resultantly, in the absence of any permit or licence for retaining the pistol and live cartridges, the conviction had been recorded.

3. Mr.Lokesh Sharma, Legal Aid Counsel, has taken support of the record of the case and submitted that the recovery memo (Ex.PM/1) was not witnessed by any independent witness as pistol which was recovered was kept concealed on the Hissar-Tohana-Hisar road near a pond and therefore, the same does not exhibit any confidence and the appellant has wrongly been convicted, having been falsely implicated by the investigating agency.

4. State Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the said argument on the ground that there was no justification for the investigating agency to falsely implicate the appellant.

5. A perusal of the record would go on to show that the FIR was lodged regarding the incident which took place on 01.06.2005 at Narwana. Suresh Kumar, the injured had given statement (Ex.PA) who alleged that on 01.06.2005 at about 7.20 PM, he along with his brother, Jaipal were going on the motorcycle to their house from their shop and when they reached near LIC office behind Arya School, fire shot was given from behind. He found that one motorcycle was following them which had then overtaken them and stopped in front of them and on account of the same, both had fallen down. Jagdish @ Kunti who was one of the 3 occupants of the motorcycle, had fired a shot which had hit at the back of his brother. The other two companions fired the shot which hit his brother in his head and the other shot hit on the right arm of the complainant and thereafter, his uncle Kunti had also come. On raising alarm, the accused person along with the other 2 companions riding on the motorcycle fled in the dark.

6. The deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Narwana in the Government Jeepsy of the police where he was brought for treatment and was declared dead. The other assailant was named as Subhash and the third person was a young boy of medium height who could be recognized if produced. The reason for the incident is that they used to sell food-grains at Purchase Centre at Danoda and accused, Kunti had been demanding ransom from them which they had refused and therefore, the incident had taken place.

7. It is pertinent to notice that the present appellant was roped in on the basis of the investigation done by PW-22, Som Raj, Inspector who had received a message on the telephone that firing had taken place in Professor Colony near old LIC office Narwana. He had taken both the injured in his jeep for treatment in the Government Hospital. As per the information from investigation, it had come to his notice that murder had been committed by 8 persons, who were all charge-shee