IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sanjay Vashisth, J.
Karambir & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-S-472-SB-2004
Decided On : 15-02-2023
Arms Act - Conviction under Section 25 (IB) (a) - 25/54 of the Arms Act, 1959 - The judgment discusses the conviction of the appellants under Section 25 of the Arms Act and the findings of the court in relation to the offence under Section 412 IPC. The court analyzed the evidence and found contradictions in the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the appellants under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act based on the recovery of money and firearms from their possession. However, the court found contradictions in the prosecution's case and lack of reliability in the depositions of the investigating officer and the recovery witness. The court also noted the absence of independent witnesses and the failure to record secret information as DDR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was doubtful due to material contradictions, lack of reliability in the depositions, and failure to record secret information. Based on these reasons, the court set aside the judgment of conviction and acquitted the appellant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecution's case, contradictions in the evidence, and the failure to follow proper procedures in recording secret information and involving independent witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the doubts raised regarding the prosecution's case, including contradictions in the evidence, lack of reliability in the depositions, and failure to follow proper procedures in recording secret information and involving independent witnesses.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.02.2004 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted from the charges levelled against him.
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral) - Appellants, namely Karambir and Rambir have filed the present appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.02.2004 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, in sessions case No. 33 of 2003, after they being convicted for the offence under Section 25 (IB) (a) of the Arms Act in case FIR No. 82 dated 04.06.2003 under Sections 412 IPC and 25/54 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Bawal, District Rewari.
2. Both the appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Details of sentence awarded to both the appellants are as under:-
(1) Accused Karambir (appellant No. 1, herein) :-
Section(s) | Sentence (R.I.) | Fine in Rs. | In default |
25 of the Arms Act | 01 year | 1000/- | 02 months R.I. |
(II) Accused-Rambir (appellant No. 2, herein)
Section(s) | Sentence (R.I.) | Fine in Rs. | In default |
25 of the Arms Act | 01 year | 1000/- | 02 months R.I. |
Both the convicts/appellants were held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, who deposited their respective amount of fine before the Court of learned Trial Court on the date of order of sentence itself.
3. Brief facts emerging from the First Information Report (FIR) are that on 04.06.2003, ASI Surender Singh (PW4) alongwith Constable Parkash Chand (PW5) and constable Surender Singh was present in his Government Jeep bearing registration No. HR-36B-9400 at a siege laid at Parampura Bawal road near Village Shahpur. A WT message was received from police Station Mundawar (Rajasthan), that two youths after committing loot at town Mundawar are coming to the side of Bawal in Maruti Car bearing No. DL-2CC-0759. If siege is laid, they can be apprehended. Police party, saw a Maruti car coming towards them bearing No. DL-2CC-0759 from the side of Parampura and with the help of police officials, ASI Surender Singh (PW4) succeeded in apprehending the car. On enquiry, the person sitting in the driver seat told his name as Karambir s/o Risal Singh and the other person sitting besides him, told his name as Rambir s/o Balwan. On making search, Rs. 17,000/- were recovered from the right pocket of trouser of accused-Karambir. Said amount was in the form of three wads of Rs. 50/- each, and four currency notes of Rs. 500/- each. Two wads of Rs. 50/- were having the seal of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. Besides this, from the left pocket of pant of said accused, two alive cartridge of 315 bore were recovered. On search, an amount of Rs. 16, 000/- was recovered from the right pocket of shirt worn by him. Besides this, a loaded country made pistol of 315 bore and one live cartridge were recovered from the right 'dub' of the said accused Rambir. Pistol, cartridges, recovered money from both the accused (appellants herein) and the car used by them were taken in the possession vide recovery memo as Ex. PD/1. After preparation of the ruqa, same was sent to the Police Station through Constable Parkash Chand, resulting into the registration of the formal FIR (Ex. PC).
4. After arresting the accused, other required legal formalities for conducting investigation were completed and final report/challan was submitted to the Court concerned.
Vide order dated 19.09.2003, learned trial Court challaned the appellants/accused for the offence under Section 412 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
5. In support of its case, prosecution has examined total five witnesses, those are
- PWl-Lakhmir Singh, Ahlmad to District Magistrate, Rewari.
Said witness proved the sanction order passed by District Magistrate for prosecuting the accsued under the Arms Act.
- PW2- Constable Jai Bhagwan, Armourer.
Said witness appeared and proved that the recovered pistol is in working condition.
- PW3-HC Nihal Singh,
Said witness proved the registration of the FIR.
- PW4-ASI Surender Singh (I.O.),
Said witness proved his investigation and the recoveries effected from both the appellants.
- PW5-Constable Parkash Chand.
Said witness is also the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliability and consistency in the prosecution's case, including the need to follow proper procedures in recording secret informa....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient and admissible evidence to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving possession of arms a....
Convictions for conspiracy and robbery under specific IPC sections were challenged due to unreliable evidence and identified inconsistencies.
The prosecution must prove intent and preparation beyond reasonable doubt; mere presence armed does not constitute guilt without corroborative evidence.
The court established that the absence of independent witnesses and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can undermine the prosecution's case, particularly in criminal proceedings under the Arms Ac....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of corroborative evidence and the statutory requirements for defining dacoity under Section 399 of IPC, highlighting the need for the prosecution to establish t....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.