Uttarakhand High Court
Sarfaraj @ Pappu vs State Of Uttarakhand on 13 August, 2020
Author: R.C. Khulbe
Bench: R.C. Khulbe
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.114 of 2011
Sarfaraj @ Pappu ............... Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...... Respondent
Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned Counsel for the revisionist.
Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Dy. A.G. with Ms. Mamta Joshi, B.H. for the State
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist u/s 397/ 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.09.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.1503 of 2010, State Vs. Sarfaraj @ Pappu, whereby, the Trial Court has convicted the revisionist u/s 25 of the Arms Act and awarded eighteen months' imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, as well as judgment dated 25.3.2011 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Haridwar in CRLA No.126 of 2010, Sarfaraz @ Pappu v State, whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.
2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the Chick FIR Ex.Ka-1 was lodged against the revisionist under Section 25 Arms Act on 2.5.2002 at P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar. After investigation, charge sheet was filed u/s 25 Arms Act. Accordingly, cognizance was taken. The C.J.M. after supplying the copies as prescribed u/s 207 Cr.P.C. framed the Charge on 11.7.2002, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, the prosecution got examined PW1 Vinod Kumar, PW2 Ashwani Kumar and PW3 Anubhav Batla.
23. Oral and documentary evidence was put to the revisionist u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In reply to which, he alleged the same to be false but no evidence in defence was adduced. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court found that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge under the Arms Act and convicted him. After hearing on sentence, the revisionist was sentenced as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of this judgment. Aggrieved by it, the revisionist filed criminal appeal No.126 of 2010, Sarfaraz @ Pappu v. State before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Haridwar, who after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 22.9.2010 passed by the Trial Court. Hence the present revision has been filed assailing both the judgments passed by the Courts below.
4. This Court has also gone through the statements of witnesses, namely, PW1 Vinod Kumar, PW2 Ashwani Kumar and PW3 Anubhav Batla. The testimony of the above witnesses is not only natural but also trustworthy. They have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination during trial by the revisionist but nothing has come out in their evidence, which may create any reasonable doubt in their testimony. From the perusal of the evidence, I also came to the conclusion that the Trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge against the revisionist. The conviction recorded by the trial court against the revisionist u/s 25 Arms Act suffers from no illegality.
5. As regards the sentence is concerned, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist fairly submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge against the revisionist and he does not want to argue the revision on merits; the matter relates to the 3 year 2002; and the revisionist is the only bread earner of his family; he is languishing in jail in another criminal case; looking to the gravity of offence, the sentence may be reduced to one year.
6. Considering the facts of the present case viz. the matter relates to the year 2002, only a country-made pistol with 2 cartridges has been recovered from his possession, thus, in the present circumstances, one year imprisonment is sufficient to serve the purpose.
7. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction part u/s 25 Arms Act is left intact. However, as far as sentence part is concerned, the sentence awarded to the revisionist is reduced to one year imprisonment instead of 18 months' imprisonment as awarded by the Trial Court. However, the revisionist will deposit the fine as imposed by the Trial Court, within two months. The judgment and order passed by the Trial Court is modified to the aforesaid extent only.
8. Let a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith to the learned Trial Court for information/ compliance.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 13.08.2020 Balwant/Sukhbant