Himachal Pradesh High Court
Lalman @ Lalu vs . State Of H.P. on 11 December, 2024
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
Lalman @ Lalu vs. State of H.P. Cr. Appeal No. 378 of 2023 11.12.2024 Present: Mr.Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent- State.
Cr.M.P. No. 4687 of 2024 This is an application for suspension of sentence and releasing the applicant-appellant-Lalman @ Lalu on bail.
The respondent-State has filed reply by opposing the prayer.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant-appellant that applicant-appellant has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of `10,000/- and simple imprisonment for 1 year with fine of `1000/- respectively under Sections 25(1)(AA) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and 29(b) of the Act.
Referring statement of PW.8-Mahender Pal alias Bablu, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, has submitted that this witness is sole witness examined to prove sale and possession of SBML Gun by appellant and even if the said statement is admitted to be completely true and correct, then also, this witness has not given specific date of offer of sale, and sale by applicant-appellant Lalman and purchase by co-convict/ Suresh Kumar. Rather, this witness has given vague statement that 2-3 years back sale of the gun was offered which was purchased by co-convict/Suresh Kumar within two and a half months thereafter.
It has been submitted that PW.8 has deposed in the Court on 02.08.2022 and 2-3 years back time relates back to 02.08.2019 and it has been submitted that Sections 25(1)(a) and 25(1)(AA) of the Act have been amended in December 2019 and prior to that sentence provided for commission of offence under Section 25(1)
(a) was 3 years extendable to 7 years and the same for commission of offence under Section 25(1)(AA) was 7 years extendable to life imprisonment and, therefore, it has been contended that even if offence is considered to have been committed by applicant-appellant/Lalman, then it relates to unamended provisions of the Act.
It has further been submitted that Trial Court has convicted the applicant-appellant under Section 25(1)(AA) of the Act, which provides punishment for selling or offering for sale any prohibited arm or prohibited ammunition in contravention of Section 7 of the Act.
It has further been submitted that classification of arms and ammunition has been referred in Rule-3 of Arms Rules 16 with reference to Schedule-I appended with these Rules.
Part-A of Schedule-I prescribes details of restricted, prohibited and permissible arms.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant-appellant that the arm alleged to have been used for commission of offence, in present matter, is Single Barrel Muzzle Loading Gun (SBML), and this arm does not find mention in the details of restricted or prohibited arms provided in Categories I, II and IV in the Schedule whereas Category-III provides that arms other than those defined in categories I, II and IV are permissible Arms.
According to learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, even if all allegations are accepted to be true, then also weapon alleged to have been used in the commission of offence falls in the category of "permissible arms" and, therefore, at the most, applicant- appellant could have been punished under Section 25(1)
(a) of the Act for which in the Act, prior to December 2019, sentence was provided for 3 years extendable to 7 years.
In backdrop of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, submits that sentence awarded to the applicant-appellant, i.e. rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 25(1)(AA) of the Act, is not sustainable in any manner.
Impugned judgment, whereby applicant- appellant has been convicted was passed in July 2023 and appeal has been preferred in the same year, and for non availability of Roster for final hearing of main appeals a considerable long time may be taken for final hearing of this appeal.
Considering aforesaid submissions, peculiar facts and provisions of the law and also the fact that there is no possibility of hearing taking place in near future, we are of the opinion that a prima facie case is made out for suspension of sentence, at this stage.
Accordingly, substantive sentence imposed vide judgment/order dated 01.07.2023/17.07.2023, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.15 of 2022, titled as State of H.P. vs. Suresh Kumar & another , is suspended during the pendency of the appeal, subject to applicant's/appellant's furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court on or before 31.12.2024, undertaking therein to appear before this Court as and when directed and to surrender to serve out the sentence imposed in case his appeal is ultimately dismissed, and also subject to deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited, with the Trial Court on or before the aforesaid date.
Bail bonds so furnished by the applicant- appellant shall be transmitted by the Trial Court to the Registry of this Court for placing the same on record.
Application stands disposed of.
(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge December 11, 2024 (Purohit)