The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on incriminating evidence, the credibility of official witnesses, and the connection between the recovered pistol and the fired cartridge case to establish the guilt of the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

JUDGMENT :

N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2012 and order of sentence dated 03.08.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, whereby the appellant, namely, Manoj Kumar, was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/- alongwith a default stipulation.

2. Brief facts, which are necessary for the just and effective disposal of the present case are that the instant case was registered on the basis of the complaint moved by Balwan Singh son of Mohan Lal, resident of Gari Harsaru, District Gurgaon. As per the complainant, at about 08.30 PM on 18.09.2010, when he returned from the temple, he noticed that his children were standing in front of their house. He enquired from the children as to what happened and was informed that Udai Singh and Manoj son of Lilu Ram, both accused, were standing on the roof of the house of Udai Singh. The house of Udai Singh was on the back side of his house. After that, he went behind his house and found that Udai Singh and Manoj, both accused, were standing on the roof of Udai Singh and they started abusing him on seeing him. The complainant asked them not to abuse him. On that, Udai Singh abused and asked Manoj Singh to fire on the complainant. Manoj took out his pistol and fired upon the complainant with an intention to kill him but he escaped. Thereafter, the complainant reported the matter to the police and the FIR was registered against Udai Singh and Manoj (appellant) under Sections 307/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

3. After necessary investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented against both the accused, namely, Udai Singh and Manoj Kumar. Since the case was triable by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, the same was committed to the learned Sessions Court for trial by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon. Finding a prima-facie case, charge under Section 307/34 IPC was ordered to be framed against both the accused and charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act was framed only against Manoj Kumar, present appellant. Both the accused claimed trial. Ultimately, after completion of the trial, accused Udai Singh was ordered to be acquitted, whereas Manoj Kumar, the present appellant, was acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC, however, he was held guilty for the commission of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced as mentioned above.

4. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to refer to the evidence led by the prosecution in support of the charge. The prosecution examined PW-1 Inspector Satender Kumar, SHO, Police Station, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, who had prepared the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and forwarded the same to the Illaqa Magistrate. ASI Arvind Kumar, Reader to Joint Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon, was examined as PW-2, who exhibited the sanctioned order as Ex.PC. The prosecution further examined PW-3 HC Ajay Kumar, in whose presence ASI Rambir Singh, Investigating officer had interrogated Manoj Kumar, the present appellant, who made a disclosure statement Ex.PE to the effect that he had kept concealed country-made pistol in his room of the tube-well in his village on the laft. The disclosure statement was signed by the appellant and was attested by HC Ajay Kumar and constable Pawan Kumar. On 28.10.2010, the appellant got recovered one country-made pistol in pursuance of his disclosure statement. The sketch EX.PF was prepared by ASI Rambir Singh and the pistol was converted into sealed parcel with the seal ‘RB’ and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PG. In his cross-examination, the witness admitted that no public witness was joined at the time of interrogation of accused Manoj and the accused had made disclosure statement on 27.10.2010. Even the recovery had taken place at 10.00 am on 28.10.2010.