The prosecution must prove all elements of the charge, including proper sanction and evidence of seized items, for a conviction under the IPC and Arms Act.

JUDGMENT

The appellant has filed present appeal under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (in short“Cr.P.C) being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction dated 12/08/1999 passed by 5 th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No. 38/1998, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 506-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) and section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to fine of Rs. 2000/- and three years R.I with fine of Rs. 500/- respectively with default stipulation.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 30/06/1997 at about 11.45 pm, while the complainant Dayaram along with his family members was sleeping in his home, at that time, the appellant came in front of his house and started abusing in filthy language. When Pannabai, wife of the complainant, objected to do so, the appellant threatened to kill her. Thereafter, while the complainant and other family members came there, the appellant fired gun shot at the complainant. He fell down, due to which, he did not sustain any injury. Thereafter, the appellant fled away from the spot. The complainant lodged FIR at police station – Ingoriya vide Ex.-P/7. The Investigating Officer recorded the memo statement of the appellant under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and at his instance, one gun, three life cartridges and one dead cartridge were recovered from his possession. The I.O. also seized pieces of used cartridges from the spot and also prepared spot map.

3 Further prosecution story is that a licence had been seized from the possession of the appellant, but it was found lapsed. The seized gun and cartridges were sent for analysis to FSL vide memo Ex.-P/15. The District Magistrate, Ujjain also issued sanction for the prosecution of the appellant under section 25 of the Arms Act . After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Badnagar, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Ujjain.

4 The trial Court, on the basis of the allegations made in the charge-sheet, framed the charges under sections 307, 294, 506 of IPC and section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act . The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence in the trial Court. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and placed Ex.-P/1 to Ex-P/17 on record. The defence of the appellant was of false implication, however, in support of his contention, he did not examine any witness in defence. The trial Court after due consideration of the evidence available on record, convicted the appellant under section 506-B of IPC and section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms and acquitted him from the charge under sections 307 and 294 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred present appeal before this Court.

5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law and facts on record. The impugned judgment is neither legal, nor proper. The trial Court was wrong in believing the prosecution witnesses and also not considering material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The trial Court was also wrong in drawing unwarranted inference. Prosecution sanction under the Arms Act is not according to the law. Under these circumstances, learned counsel prays that present appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court be set aside.

6 Per-contra, learned PL for the respondent/State opposed the prayer made by the appellant by supporting the impugned judgment of conviction as recorded on proper appreciation of evidence and the same does not call for any inference.

7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and also perused the record of the trial Court with due care.

8. First of all it has to be considered that the prosecution has been duly succeeded to prove the offence under section 506 part II of IPC against the appellant or not ?.

9. The complainant Dayaram (PW-4) in his statement befo