HIGH CGURT 6F CHHATTI$GARH AT BiLiASPUR Division Bench : Hon’bie Shri Diiip Raosaheb Bes'nmuk'n & Shri Raieshwar L s l I Criminai Revision No. 2E2 or zu Criminai Revision Under $ection 3§7 Read With Seciion 401‘ of the‘ ode of ! Procedure 19 Present Anniir‘ r".. w n-ap iicanteNoJ & ZiState uy Shri N. Na 1a Roy, P.L. Non-appiicant No.3 by $hri P.K.C.Tiwari, $enior Advocate with Shri $haehibhuehan. bv $hri Pawan Kesharweni, Advocate. 'I CJRI'AL ()RDER (Passed on 21 3‘ August. 2009) Heard on admission. 2: Thie orimine! revieion. is. directed againet the judgment dated 1Q‘” March; 2QO5 delivered in Seesione Case No: 1QQ/2QQ4 by‘the 3r“ Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur whereby the non-appiicant No.3 — Abdui Rub Ansart was acquitted of the charge under Section 3oz of the i.F.C. and Section 25 read with Section ’27 of the Arms Act while convicting him under Section 304A of the i.P.C. whereunder sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and rme or Hs.zo,UUU/- and in defauit additionai rigorous imprisonment for six months was awarded. :5; _ Brief facts are that Yusuf Khan P.W.1, non-appiicant No.3 - Abdui Rub Ansari and the deceased Ashraf Hussein were piaying a game of Ludo on 04.01 .2003. Ashraf Hussein had an automatic pistoi with him. The non- ., ,Kipiicant No.3 felt that it was a toy pistoi. During the game, the non- H e a J: ua i c cri a ?3 a - Appiscant : Mustaq Hussain aged about 57 years, son of Abdm $hakur‘, resident ef Méadhapara, benina nouse of Faziur Rahman, Raipur i (C n x \""J versus __,__ Non-appiicariR 'i. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through P‘S. a 1‘ Maudhapara, Raipur. - z. District Magistrate, Raipur 3. Abciui Rub Ansari aiias rabbu, aged about 4 26 years, son of La! Mohammad resident i of Maudhapara, in front of I‘v‘Iaszid, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) appiicant No.3 wanted to touch the pistoi whereupon Ashraf kept his hand over the hand of the non-appiicant No.3. The non-appiicant No.3 attempted to snatch the automatic pistoiv and in that process a shot was fired resuiting in death of Ashraf Hussain. 4. Shri Pawan Kesharwani, teamed counsel for the appiicant submitted at the very outset that in this revision he wouid not assaii the acquittai of the non-applicant No.3 under $ection 302 of the i.P.C. but wouid argue oniy on the acquittai under $ection ‘25 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsei argued that the testimony‘of the investigating ofdcer DSFarihar P.W.18 in paragraph 8 wouid reveai that the automatic pistoi was seized from<the non-appiicant No.3 vide its seizure memo ExPJ't. Therefore, unauthorised possession of the automatic pistoi by the non-appiicant No.3 was estabiished beyond doubt. 5. Tite argumeht advanced by the iearneci counsei for the appiicant is demoiished by the testimony of investigating officer 3hri D.S.Parihar P.W.1'6 in paragraph 19 in which he admitted that at the poiice station the pistoi was kept on the tabie and simpiy because the Head Constabie told him that itwas produced by the non-appiicant No.3, he ‘nad effected the seizure of the pistoif from the non—appiicant No.3. Yusuf Khan F’WJ‘, the soie eye witness has deposed that the pistoi was in possession of Ashraf and during an attempt to snatch it, a shot was hred. 6. We have perused the case of Sessions Case No.100i2004 with utmost circumspection and in View of the testimony of Yusuf Khan PWJ’ and the statement of investigating officer DSParihar F’Wjb in paragraph 1t}, We r are of the considered opinion that the acquittai‘of the non-appiicant No.3 under Section 25 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act is weii merited and does not caii for interference in exercise of revisionai jurisdiction. 7. The revision has no merit and is dismissed accordingiy. / z” m—h‘ / z Sdl- ' r r R.\.. 3 Judge hanwa‘: . Judge . r sol— Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh i ' i