Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sushil vs State Of Haryana on 14 November, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007CRILJ609
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann, J.
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhiwani on 11/12-8-2006, vide which he was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further RI for a period of two months.
2. On the night, intervening January 31, 2006 and February 1, 2006, police party, consisting of Inspector Ram Avtar of CIA-II, Bhiwani and other police officials, under the overall supervision of Vijay Partap Singh, Probationary DSP, was present near Loharu-Dadri Chowk in Bhiwani. Inspector Ram Avtar received a secret information that six persons were present in an abandoned room, located on the left side of the road leading from Bhiwani to Loharu and they were carrying illicit weapons, besides possessing a vehicle and preparing to commit dacoity on that very night. In case a raid was conducted immediately, they could be apprehended. Inspector Ram Avtar apprised his fellow officials about the information received and thereafter formed four separate raiding parties by directing them to surround the abandoned room from all the sides. In pursuance of the said directions, the police parties reached the disclosed place and found a car parked there. Inspector Ram Avtar stood by the side of a wall and reaching near the room, he found that six boys were present and they were having a discussion. One of the bpys was explaining the plan and design to commit dacoity by stopping a bus coming from the side of Loharu on that very night. Inspector Ram Avtar Issued a warning to those boys that they have been surrounded from all sides and it would be better for them to surrender. At this, the boys present in the room, attempted to run away but were apprehended. The appellant was apprehended along with a. 12 bore pistol carried by him in his right hand which was loaded with a live cartridge. Ramesh, Ravi @ Raju, Ram Avtar and Anil were arrested. An Iron rod was recovered from each of these four persons. One boy, whose name was later on learnt to be Sandeep, however, managed to escape from the spot. The weapons carried by the five accused, who were apprehended as well as the Maruti car parked there were taken into possession. Ruqa was, thereafter, sent by Inspector Ram Avtar from the spot to the Police Station on the basis of which FIR No. 45 dated 1-2-2006 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani under Sections 399/402, IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
3. Further investigations were carried out at the spot. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. The accused were interrogated and they suffered disclosure statements admitting therein about their involvement in several other cases. Accused Sandeep was arrested on 20-3-2006. Similar disclosure statement was also suffered by him when he was interrogated.
4. The pistol recovered from the appellant Sushil @ Susu was tested by HC Jaipal Singh, Armourer. Necessary sanction to prosecute the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act was obtained from District Magistrate, Bhiwani. After completion of the investigation, final report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Ilaqa Magistrate.
5. Following the commitment of the case, all the accused were charged for offences under Sections 399/402, IPC. Appellant Sushil @ Susu was also charged for an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution examined PW 1 Bhishm Chander, Reader to District Magistrate, Bhiwani, who proved sanction Ex. PA accorded by District Magistrate for prosecution of the present appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act. PW 2 HC Jaipal Singh, who was also posted as Armourer, tested the pistol and cartridge on 4-4-2006 and found the pistol to be in working order while the cartridge as live. PW 3 SI Ramphal mentioned about the details of the raid conducted, wherein the five accused were arrested with weapons when they were preparing to commit a dacoity. PW 4 Inspector Ram Avtar gave the details of the occurrence starting from the receiving of a secret information by him against the six persons, who were told to be present in an abandoned room along with illicit weapons and already possessing a vehicle, where they were planning to commit robbery in a bus. He stated about the forming of different raiding parties and then apprehending the accused, including the appellant Sushil @ Susu, and four others while one accused Sandeep managing to flee from the spot. He further testified about the recovery of the weapons as well as the car from the accused. He proved Ruqa Ex. PO, which he had sent to the Police Station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PO/1 was recorded. He had prepared rough site plan Ex. PP at the spot. He also recorded the disclosure statements suffered by the five accused, who were apprehended at the spot. He further stated about the arrest of Sandeep accused on 20-3-2006. PW 5 ASI Ramphal deposed about getting the pistol tested from the Armourer.
7. At the end of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. All the incriminating evidence was put to them but they denied the prosecution allegations and claimed false implication. When called upon to lead evidence in defence, they first opted to do the same but later on closed the defence evidence without producing any witness.
8. The version of the prosecution in so far as it related to the assembly of the accused in an abandoned room, while preparing to commit a dacoity, was not believed by the trial Court. Some contradictions were noted in the statements of SI Ramphal PW 3 and Inspector Ram Avtar PW 4. Further that only one accused was found to be addressing the other accused while none of the other accused present at that time replied to the planning or the directions being given by one of them. Another reason was given that none of the accused had used his weapon at the time of his apprehension. Keeping in view the other attending circumstances, the trial Court acquitted all the accused under Sections 399/402, IPC. However, the trial Court believed the prosecution case in so far as it related to recovery of. 12 bore pistol loaded with one live cartridge from the appellant. As the appellant was not having any valid licence for the same, he was held guilty under Section 25 of the Arms Act and was accordingly, convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
9. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the main substratum of the prosecution case has already disbelieved by the trial Court by acquitting the accused under Sections 399/402, IPC. On the same and similar evidence, conviction of the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act was not sustainable. Further that HC Jaipal Singh did not conduct any test firing to find out as to whether the 12 bore pistol, recovered from the appellant, was actually a weapon or not. Only mechanical test was conducted by HC Jaipal Singh to conclude that the pistol was in working order. Alternatively, it was prayed that as the appellant has already been in custody since 1-2-2006 and served a period of more than nine months, sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant to be reduced to that already undergone by him.
10. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the appellant was found to be in possession of. 12 bore pistol along with one live cartridge for which he could not give any satisfactory explanation. He did not possess any licence to keep the weapon. The weapon was duly tested by HC Jaipal Singh PW 2, who found the same to be in working order. Thus, the conviction of the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act was unassailable. Regarding the quantum of sentence, learned State counsel pointed out that the appellant is already involved in several other cases and, thus, no leniency could be shown to him.
11. I have heard the arguments addressed by learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the State.
12. Though, it is a fact that the main charge against the appellant and his co-accused was under Sections 399/402, IPC as they were alleged to be sitting in an abandoned room while preparing to commit dacoity, yet even if the said charge could not be proved by the prosecution, it could not detract from the credibility of the prosecution case to the extent it established the commission of offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. There is consistent evidence led by the prosecution to prove that at the time of the apprehension of the appellant, 12 bore pistol along with a live cartridge in it was recovered from him. The said weapon was duly attested by the Armourer, who gave his report Ex. PB/1 that the pistol was found to be in working order while the cartridge was live. PW 1 Bhishm Chander, Reader to District Magistrate, Bhiwani proved the sanction order Ex. PA granted by District Magistrate for the purposes of prosecuting the appellant for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. No fault can be found with the conviction of the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act as the prosecution has successful in proving the said charge beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act as recorded by the trial Court is maintained.
13. Coming to the question of quantum of sentence, it may be seen that till date the appellant has not been convicted in any other case except the present one, although as per the details collected by the prosecuting agency, he has been involved in many other criminal cases. He has remained in jail for about nine months. Although he was granted interim bail by this Court on 26-9-2006, he still remains behind the bars on account of the fact that he is involved in other criminal cases as well. Taking an overall view of the case, this Court feels that ends of justice would be amply met by reducing the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant from RI two years to RI for one year.
14. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act is maintained. However, the sentence of RI for two years imposed upon the appellant is reduced to RI for one year. Fine of Rs. 2,000/- along with the default clause imposed by the trial Court shall remain as it is.
15. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.