Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mangat Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 August, 2014
Author: Kuldip Singh
Bench: Kuldip Singh
CRA No. S-2411-SB of 2004 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA No. S-2411-SB of 2004
Date of Decision : 27.8.2014
Mangat Singh alias Manga son of Dayal Singh ....... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
Present:- Ms. Vriti Gujral, Advocate, for,
Mr. Navjinder S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. M.S. Kang, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab,
for respondent-State.
KULDIP SINGH, J.
By way of present appeal, Mangat Singh alias Manga has challenged the judgment and order dated 28/29.9.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kapurthala, vide which accused/appellant was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. This sentence was directed to run concurrently with the sentence awarded in main case FIR No. 12 of 14.3.2002.
The brief facts of the case are that on 11.4.2002, accused Mangat Singh, while in police custody in FIR No. 12 of 2002 under Sections 395, 342 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, was subjected to interrogation by SI Charanjit Singh (PW5). Accused suffered a disclosure SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.08.28 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA No. S-2411-SB of 2004 -2- statement (Ex.PW2/A), in which he disclosed that he has kept concealed one country made 315 bore pistol alongwith two live cartridges buried under the earth near the sarkanda (elephant grass) on the left side of the telephone pole, which is about 20 karams right side from the road near the place of Peer Baba, situated near cremation ground, Dhilwan. Randhir Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, Fathu Chak was joined in the police party as independent witness. Accordingly, accused led the police party to the said place and after removing the earth, got recovered a country made pistol of 315 bore alongwith two live cartridges, which were found duly wrapped in a polythene bag. The same were taken into possession through recovery memo Ex.PW2/B. Rough sketch (Ex.PW1/A) of the pistol was prepared. Site plan (Ex.PW5/A) of place of recovery was prepared. Ruqa (Ex.PW3/A) was sent to the police station, where formal FIR No. 26 dated 11.4.2002 (Ex.PW3/B) under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered.
During the course of investigation, the pistol was got mechanically tested from HC Raman Kumar, Head Armourer, who submitted his report (Ex.PW1/B), wherein he opined that on mechanical test, the pistol was found to be in working order and fit to fire the cartridge. During the course of investigation, the sanction of the District Magistrate, Kapurthala, (Ex.PW4/A) was obtained.
After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court.
Accused/appellant was chargesheeted under Sections 25 of the Arms Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, prosecution examined H.C. Raman SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.08.28 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA No. S-2411-SB of 2004 -3- Kumar, Head Armourer, Police Line, Kapurthala (PW1), ASI Jagir Singh (PW2), ASI Mohinder Singh (PW3), Mukhtiar Singh, Reader to District Magistrate, Kapurthala (PW4), SI Charanjit Singh (PW5) and thereafter, prosecution closed the evidence.
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused pleaded innocence and claimed that he has been falsely in the present case. No recovery was effected from him. Accused did not lead any evidence in defence.
After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for the accused and going through the file, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kapurthala, convicted and sentenced the accused aforesaid.
I have heard learned counsel for the accused/appellant, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and have also carefully gone through the file.
SI Charanjit Singh (PW5) has unfolded the prosecution story. He has deposed that on 11.4.2002, he had interrogated accused Mangat Singh in case FIR No. 12 dated 14.3.2002 under Sections 395 and 342 IPC. During the course of interrogation, accused suffered a disclosure statement (Ex.PW2/A) that he (accused) has kept concealed one country made pistol alongwith two live cartridges wrapped in a polythene bag in bushes near the cremation ground Dhilwan, which he can get recovered. Randhir Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, Fathu Chak was joined in the police party as independent witness. Accordingly, accused led the police party to the said place and got recovered one country made pistol and two live cartridges, SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.08.28 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA No. S-2411-SB of 2004 -4- which were taken into possession through recovery memo Ex.PW2/B. Thereafter, ruqa (Ex.PW3/A) was sent to the police station, where formal FIR No. 26 dated 11.4.2002 (Ex.PW3/B) was registered. His statement is supported by ASI Jagir Singh (PW2).
Reader/Clerk of the District Magistrate, Kapurthala, Mukhtiar Singh (PW4) has proved that the District Magistrate, Kapurthala, had granted the sanction (Ex.PW4/A) to prosecute the accused under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
HC Raman Kumar, Head Armourer, Police Line, Kapurthala, (PW1) has proved that he had mechanically tested the country made pistol and submitted the report that it was in working order. HC Raman Kumar had done the Armourer Course from CSWT BSF, Indore in the year 1987 and is having vast experience in testing the weapons. In cross examination, he was asked whether he had test fired the weapon, to which he replied in negative.
Learned counsel for the accused/appellant has argued that in this case, accused has been falsely implicated. It has been argued that the prosecution case is based on the testimony of official witnesses only. The only independent witness Randhir Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, Fathu Chak, has not been examined.
I am of the view that non-examination of independent witness is immaterial. The Court is to see whether the statement of the Investigating Officer and other witnesses is reliable. In this case, it comes out that police had registered a case bearing FIR No. 12 of 2002 under Sections 395, 342 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act on the same day. It SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.08.28 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA No. S-2411-SB of 2004 -5- was in this connection that the accused was arrested and interrogated. On interrogation, the accused disclosed about concealment of one 315 bore country made pistol alongwith two live cartridges buried under the earth near the sarkanda (elephant grass) on the left side of the telephone pole, which is about 20 karams right side from the road near the place of Peer Baba, situated near cremation ground, Dhilwan. Accordingly, accused led the police party to the said place and after removing the earth, got recovered a country made pistol of 315 bore alongwith two live cartridges, which were found duly wrapped in a polythene bag. There is nothing on file to show that police had any enmity or ill-will with the accused or that why police will falsely implicate the accused. Even the accused does not belong to the area where the dacoity was committed. It is not the case of the accused that this case was planted upon him after picking him up from his native place. It goes to show that the accused, during interrogation in case FIR No. 12 of 2002, disclosed about the concealment of a weapon and ammunition. Merely non-examination of the independent witness is immaterial.
Learned counsel for the accused/appellant has further argued that in this case the pistol was not test fired. Therefore, it cannot be said that the pistol was in working order.
I am of the view that the Head Armourer HC Raman Kumar (PW1) has specifically stated that he had mechanically tested the pistol and same was found to be in working order. No question was put to the Head Armourer (PW1) as to in which manner he has tested the pistol to show that no proper mechanical test was done to check the firing SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.08.28 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA No. S-2411-SB of 2004 -6- capability of the pistol. It being so, the testimony of HC Raman Kumar, Head Armourer (PW1) cannot be disbelieved.
No other argument was raised by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant.
In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Thus, CRA No. S-2411-SB of 2004, filed by accused/appellant Mangat Singh @ Manga stands dismissed. Accused is on bail. His bail bond and surety bond are cancelled. Accused/appellant Mangat Singh @ Manga be immediately arrested and committed to jail to undergo the remaining part of sentence (KULDIP SINGH) JUDGE 27.8.2014 sjks SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.08.28 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document