Conviction under the Arms Act requires independent corroboration of evidence, especially from police witnesses; the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

ORDER

1. This criminal revision under section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being disgruntled by the judgment dated 7.11.2019, passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, District Badwani in Cr.A. No.83/2019, affirming the judgment dated 30.7.2019, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Badwani in Criminal Case No.827/2015, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under section 25 (1-B)(A) read with section 3 of the ARMS ACT , 1959, sentenced to undergo one year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and usual default stipulation.

2. As per prosecution story, police received secret information that one person is carrying illegal weapons. Upon the said information, police party reached to Sulabh Complex, one person who was standing on the spot and caught hold him. On search, two pistols was found from his possession. He showed his inability to produce the license. Accordingly case was registered. After investigation charge-sheet was filed.

3. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined total 06 witnesses namely Mukesh Chouhan, Assistant Grade-II, Collectrate Office (PW-1), Bilu @ Veeru (PW-2), Rahul Rayakwar, Sub-Inspector (PW3), Suresh Patidar, Head Constable (PW-4), Mukesh Panwar, Constable (PW-5) and Onkar (PW-6). No defence witness has been adduced by the petitioner in his defence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the testimony of witnesses Bilu @ Veeru (PW-2) and Onkar (PW-6) who are independent witnesses and have not supported the prosecution case and have also been declared hostile.

5. It is further contended that the seizure of the pistol on spot, is also doubtful. In the statement of Rahul Rayakwar, Sub-Inspector (PW-3), he has stated in his cross-examination of his statement that when information was received, he was on motorcycle alongwith Head Constable Suresh, but further he stated that witnesses went on the spot by his motorcycle. The statement of Suresh Patidar, Head Constable (PW-4) is also significant, who has stated in para 2 of his cross-examination that Rahul Rayakwar, SubInspector (PW-3) called two witnesses namely Bilu @ Veeru (PW-2) and Onkar (PW-6) to come at Bus Stand but in para 3 of cross-examination himself again stated that Rahul Rayakwar, Sub-Inspector (PW-3) did not call the independent two witnesses namely Bilu @ Veeru (PW-2) and Onkar (PW-6). Further, witness Mukesh Pawar (PW-5) has stated in his statement that it cannot be said how much time old is the article and he could not check the arms by firing. He further stated that any pistol cannot be said pistol without fire. Likewise, he said, the working conditin of the pistol can also not be confirmed without firing with cartridge.

6. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision on several grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner alternatively placed his arguments on the point of sentence only and prays that since the petitioner has already undergone approximately eight months in jail incarceration, his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. The petitioner deserves some leniency as he has already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2015 for a period of 09 years. It is further contended that this petition be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by