Criminal Appeal No. 816-SB of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 816-SB of 2000 Date of decision : October 13, 2011 Ashok Kumar ....Appellant versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate for Mr. NK Malhotra, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. Anil Kumar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This criminal appeal has been preferred by convict Ashok Kumar assailing his conviction and sentence ordered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide judgment dated 19.8.2000 and order dated 21.8.2000 whereby appellant-accused Ashok Kumar stands convicted under section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs 500/- and in default thereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. Prosecution case in brief may be stated as under:- Accused Ashok Kumar was already in custody in FIR No. 196 Criminal Appeal No. 816-SB of 2000 -2- of 1994 for different offences including offence under section 302 IPC. On 30.9.1994, on interrogation by ASI Hukam Chand, the accused disclosed that he had concealed a country made pistol underneath the ground behind a factory near village Bahu Akberpur and none else was aware of it. Thereupon accused in the presence of ASI Hukam Chand, HC Ram Kumar and HC Ajit Singh got recovered a country made pistol of .12 bore along with four live cartridges of .12 bore from the stated place. Sketch of the pistol was prepared. The pistol and the cartridges were sealed into parcel and were seized by the police. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station for registration of the FIR. ASI Hukam Chand investigated the case. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. On test by Armourer, the pistol was found to be in working order and the cartridges were found to be live. Sanction for prosecution of the accused was obtained from District Magistrate. On completion of investigation, police presented report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for prosecution of the accused under section 25 of the Arms Act. Case was committed to Session Court because it was offshoot of main case bearing FIR No. 196 of 1994 which was exclusively triable by the court of Session. Charge under section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 was framed against the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses. Criminal Appeal No. 816-SB of 2000 -3- HC Rattan Singh, Armourer, PW1 stated that he had tested the pistol and four cartridges of this case and found the pistol in working order and fit for firing and found the cartridges to be live ones. HC Ram Niwas, PW2 and another HC Ram Niwas, PW5 have stated that the case property was not tampered with in their custody. HC Ram Kumar, PW3 and ASI Hukam Chand, PW4 have broadly stated according to the prosecution version about recovery of pistol and four live cartridges at the instance of the accused. ASI Hukam Chand also stated about investigation of the case conducted by him. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. when he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. He alleged that he has been falsely implicated in this case to create additional evidence in the main case. No evidence was led by the accused in his defence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the accused as already stated hereinbefore. Feeling dissatisfied, the convict has preferred the instant criminal appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their assistance. Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no independent witness to prove the recovery of pistol and cartridges from the accused and statements of two police officials are not sufficient to prove Criminal Appeal No. 816-SB of 2000 -4- the said recovery. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that prosecution evidence is reliable and is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Prosecution has led sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. HC Ram Kumar, PW3 and ASI Hukam Chand, PW4 have stated about recovery of the pistol and four live cartridges at the instance of the accused. Their statements could not be impeached in their cross-examination. Their statements cannot discarded merely because they are police officials. They had no enmity with the accused. They also had no motive, illwill or malice against the accused to implicate him in a false case or to depose falsely against him. No suggestion was even put to them in their cross- examination in this regard nor the accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. has pleaded any ground for false implication except that he was falsely implicated in this case to create additional evidence in the main case. However, recovery of pistol and live cartridges from the accused could have no bearing in the murder case against him because the pistol was not linked with the murder. Consequently, it cannot be said that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case. Statements of the police officials are as much as reliable as those of independent witnesses because police officials has no reason to implicate the accused in false case. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the prosecution evidence is sufficient to bring home the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable Criminal Appeal No. 816-SB of 2000 -5- doubt. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction is affirmed. As regards quantum of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for reduction in sentence whereas learned State counsel opposed the prayer. I have carefully considered the matter. The case is 17 years old. During this long period, the accused has faced the agony of trial including the present appeal. As per custody certificate of the appellant filed today in Court by learned State counsel, appellant has remained in custody for 7 months 21 days in this case. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant by the trial Judge is reduced to the period already undergone by him in custody while maintaining the sentence of fine. It is ordered accordingly. Fine already stands paid in the trial court as revealed by trial court file. Accordingly, bail bonds furnished by the appellant stand discharged. With reduction in sentence as aforesaid, the instant appeal stands disposed of accordingly. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 13, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'