ORDER :- Bhagwan Dayal has submitted this criminal revision petition against the judgement and order dated the 18th of March, 1966, passed by the Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Hardoi, upholding the petitioner's conviction for offences under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, and under Section 25(1)(a), Arms Act, and maintaining the concurrent sentences of 18 months' rigorous imprisonment and one year's rigorous imprisonment awarded to him : vide the judgement and order dated the 3rd of November, 1965, passed by Sri Uma Shanker Pandey. Magistrate, Hardoi.

2. A double barrel gun belonging to one Bisheswar Singh was said to have been stolen on the night between the 8th and 9th of September, 1964 from his house in his absence. The theft of the said gun was claimed to have taken place when Rati Bhan Singh P.W. 1, the brother of Bisheshwar Singh, was sleeping inside the house and found that some persons had trespassed into that house at night and were removing away the gun therefrom. Amongst the persons, who were recognised, Bhura Singh was claimed to have in his hand the aforesaid gun. A case was registered against some persons with regard to the theft of the said gun. In the meanwhile, on the 20th of December, 1964, Sri P.N. Singh P.W. 8, the then Station Officer Pali, learnt from some informant that the petitioner would very likely proceed towards Kandhari at about sunset on that day and that he would have in his possession some illicit arms. Equipped with the said information, the said Station Officer along with Raj Kumar P.W. 4 and Raj Narain P.W. 5 went thereto and lay in ambush. After some time, the petitioner was said to have passed that way. He was taken into custody after inflicting beating upon him and from his possession the aforesaid stolen gun Ext. 1 and three live cartridges Exts. 2, 3, and 4 were recovered. He did not hold any licence for the same. It was, therefore, that he was prosecuted for offences under Sec. 411, Indian Penal Code, and S. 25(1)(a) of Arms Act concerning the possession of the aforesaid unlicensed arm with regard to which he was presumed to have had the knowledge that the same was stolen.

3. The petitioner refuted the prosecution version of the occurrence and claimed that he had been taken into custody from his house and he was inflicted beating. He was kept in police custody for two days and thereafter was challaned. He had produced the doctor, who had examined his injuries in the jail, to substantiate his version about his having been taken into custody from his house earlier than the 20th of December, 1964 and inflicted beating by them. Both the Courts below, relying upon the evidence of the aforesaid S. O. and the two witnesses of public, concluded that the prosecution version of the incident was correct and the petitioner was held guilty of the aforesaid offences.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the entire prosecution case is full of inherent improbabilities. It is urged by him that the statement of the doctor, who had examined the injuries of the petitioner on the 22nd of December, 1964 at 8-15 a.m. and had opined that the duration of the injuries was three days, would be sufficient to belie the prosecution version of the occurrence. If the statement of the doctor were to be relied upon, then the injuries on the person of the petitioner would have come into being sometime on the 19th of December, 1964 in the morning. The doctor had not been cross-examined by the prosecution to elicit out of him as to whether the said duration could vary to the extent of one and a half days either way. If the statement of the said doctor were the only thing upon which the petitioner sought to bank upon to belie the prosecution version of the occurrence, then perhaps it could have been said that the duration indicated by the doctor could not be a definite criterion to belie the prosecution version of the occurrence, but in this case the second circumstance relied upon by the petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document