Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdip Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 August, 2014
Author: Kuldip Singh
Bench: Kuldip Singh
CRA No. S-2410-SB of 2004 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA No. S-2410-SB of 2004
Date of Decision : 27.8.2014
Jagdip Singh son of Kewal 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, Jagdip Singh 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 prosecution story is that on 4.4.2002, police party headed by ASI Mohinder Singh (PW2), Police Station Dhilwan had conducted a Nakabandi at T-Point, Noorpur Lubana in connection with investigation of FIR No. 12 of 2002 under Sections 395, 342 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Dhilwan. Randhir Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, Fathu SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.08.28 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA No. S-2410-SB of 2004 -2- Chak was joined in the police party as independent witness. In the meanwhile, a motorcycle No. PB-02-AA-8986 came from Noorpur Lubana side. The motorcycle was signalled to stop. However, the motorcyclist got perplexed and tried to turn back the motorcycle, but he was apprehended. The pillion rider disclosed his name as Jagdip Singh son of Kewal Singh, resident of village Mahalpur, Police Station Sadar, Amritsar. The motorcycle driver was apprehended by ASI Jagir Singh and other police officials and he disclosed his name as Sonu Sharma son of Ram Parkash, resident of Prem Nagar, Majitha Road, Amritsar.
ASI Mohinder Singh conducted the personal search of accused Jagdip Singh, on which a country made 303 bore pistol was recovered from the pant of the accused. On unloading the same, one live cartridge of 303 bore was also recovered. One live cartridge of 303 bore and one chain of gold were recovered from the right pocket of the pant of the accused. Rough sketch of pistol (Ex.PW1/A) was prepared. Accused could not produce any licence to keep the arm and ammunition. Thereafter, the pistol and two cartridges were taken into possession through recovery memo Ex.PW2/A. Site plan (Ex.PW2/B) of place of recovery was prepared. Ruqa (Ex.PW2/C) was sent to police station, where formal FIR No. 21 dated 4.4.2002 (Ex.PW2/D) was registered.
During the course of investigation, the pistol was got tested from HC Raman Kumar, Head Armourer, Police Line, Kapurthala, who submitted his report Ex.PW1/B, wherein he opined that on mechanical check of the pistol, the same was found to be in working order and fit for firing the cartridge.
SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.08.28 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA No. S-2410-SB of 2004 -3-
After obtaining sanction (Ex.PW2/E) of District Magistrate, Kapurthala, 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 Raman Kumar, Head Armourer, Police Line, Kapurthala (PW1), ASI Mohinder Singh (PW2), Mukhtiar Singh, Reader to District Magistrate, Kapurthala (PW3), HC Mohinder Singh (PW4), HC Balwinder Singh (PW5), HC Joginder Singh (PW6), HC Sukhdev Singh (PW7) 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.
ASI Mohinder Singh has unfolded the prosecution story. He has stated that they had conducted Nakabandi in connection with investigation of a case. He has also deposed that on 4.4.2002, at about 5:00 AM, a motorcycle No. PB-02-AA-8986 marka Kawasaki came from SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.08.28 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA No. S-2410-SB of 2004 -4- village Noorpur Lubana side and that the same was signalled to stop. Accused was among the two persons, who were apprehended at the spot. Randhir Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, Fathu Chak was joined in the police party as independent witness. He has further deposed that he had conducted the personal search of Jagdip Singh (accused), which resulted in recovery of one pistol (Ex.P1) from left pocket of pant of the accused. On unloading the same, one live cartridge was recovered. Another live cartridge was recovered from the right pocket of the pant of the accused. One chain of gold was also recovered from the right pocket of the accused. His statement is supported by HC Sukhdev Singh (PW7).
Reader/Clerk of the District Magistrate, Kapurthala, Mukhtiar Singh (PW3) has proved that the District Magistrate, Kapurthala, has granted the sanction 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 is 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 accused in this case 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, SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.08.28 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA No. S-2410-SB of 2004 -5- not been examined.
I am of the view that non-examination of independent witness is immaterial. The Court is to see whether the statements of the Investigating Officer and other witnesses are reliable. In this case, it comes out that on the same day, police had registered a case bearing FIR No. 12 of 2002 under Sections 395, 342 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. It was in this connection that they had conducted Nakabandi for checking the vehicles. The same is a normal practice of the police when such an occurrence takes place. It was during the surprise checking that accused alongwith his co-accused was apprehended and a country made 303 bore pistol was recovered from the accused. There is nothing on file to show that police had any enmity or ill-will with the accused and that police had falsely implicated the accused. Even the accused do not belong to the area where the dacoity was committed. They have no reason to come from their native place towards Nurpur Lubana side in the early hours of the morning at about 5:00 AM. It is not the case of the accused that he was picked up from his native place and this case was planted upon him. It goes to show that the accused was found within the jurisdiction of Police Station Dhilwan in the early hours of the morning when the dacoity was committed in the jurisdiction of Police Station Dhilwan and the police was searching for the suspects. 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.
SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.08.28 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA No. S-2410-SB of 2004 -6-
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 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-2410-SB of 2004, filed by accused/appellant Jagdip Singh stands dismissed. Accused is on bail. His bail bond and surety bond are cancelled. Accused/appellant Jagdip Singh 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 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document