Criminal Revision No.1377 of 2010(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.1377 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 12.7.2010 Ravinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Amit Khatkar Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 vide judgment dated 20.7.2009 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind. Vide order dated 21.7.2009, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.200/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.5.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jind. Hence, the present revision petition. Criminal Revision No.1377 of 2010(O&M) 2 Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “In brief, the prosecution version is that around 8.15 a.m. on 8.10.2004, Head Constable Surender Singh along with Head Constable Mahabir Singh and constables Karan Singh and Ram Singh was present at “T” point Pindara road on Safidon Road in the area of the revenue estate Village Nirjan in connection with patrolling and crime detection. On seeing the police party the accused coming from the side of village Nirjan all of the sudden turned back and started walking briskly. On suspicision, Head Constable Surinder Singh apprehended him with the help of his associates and on search conducted as per rules a loaded country made pistol 32 bore was recovered from the right dub of his pyjama. The pistol was unloaded by taking out two live cartfidges of the same from its magazine. After preparing its sketch, the pistol and the cartridges were converted into a parcel sealed with seal CR and taken into possession vide recovery memo. On the basis os rukka sent by the Investigating Officer, the present case was registered.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. As pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner there Criminal Revision No.1377 of 2010(O&M) 3 are material discrepancies in the statements of the material witnesses qua recovery of the type of fire arm from the petitioner. As per PW-2 Mahabir Singh, 32 bore country made pistol was recovered from the petitioner along with two live cartridges. To the similar effect is the statement of PW-3 ASI Surinder Singh. However, PW-4 SI Ram Kumar, in his affidavit Ex.P-4/A, has stated that on 8.10.2004, Surender Singh HC has handed over 315 bore fire arm to him along with two live cartridges being the case property. This is a material contradiction between the material witnesses which renders the prosecution case doubtful. An accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. The prosecution is required to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Whenever there is a doubt in prosecution story, the benefit of the same has to go to the accused. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for acquittal by giving him benefit of doubt. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned judgments of the Courts below are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. The petitioner, who is in custody, be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. (SABINA) JUDGE July 12, 2010 anita