Criminal Appeal No. 924-SB of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 924-SB of 2000 Date of decision : October 13, 2011 Sukhdev Singh ....Appellant versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. HNS Gill, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. RS Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Convict Sukhdev Singh has filed the instant criminal appeal impugning judgment and order dated 2.9.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur thereby convicting the appellant under section 25 of the Arms Act,1959 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to pay fine of Rs 1000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two and half months. Prosecution case in brief is that on 16.7.1994 at about 9.00 P.M., police party including HC Baljinder Singh and other police officials was present for patrolling. There were three police parties for nakabandi. Accused along with other two persons came there. They were signalled to stop with torch light, but they turned back. The accused started running towards his left side whereas his two companions started running towards Criminal Appeal No. 924-SB of 2000 -2- right hand side. The accused was apprehended by police party comprising of Baljinder Singh, Head Constable and other police officials. On his search, a kirch like knife with blade of 11” length (prohibited length) was recovered from the dub of his pants. Sketch of the kirch was prepared. The kirch was seized by the police. Accused had no permit or licence for the aforesaid weapon. Accordingly, FIR was got registered by sending ruqa. The case was investigated by HC Baljinder Singh. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Rough site plan of place of occurrence was prepared. On completion of investigation, police presented report under section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for prosecution of the accused under section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Case was committed to Session Court because it was offshoot of main case bearing FIR No. 78 of 1994 of Police Station Khuian Sarwar which was exclusively triable by court of Session. Charge under section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 was framed against the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined two witnesses i.e. HC Baljinder Singh PW1 and LC Sukhmander Singh PW2. Both of them stated about recovery of the aforesaid weapon from the accused. Baljinder Singh also stated about investigation of the case conducted by him. The accused in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. No evidence was led by the accused in his defence. Criminal Appeal No. 924-SB of 2000 -3- Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 2.9.2000 convicted and sentenced the accused as already noticed hereinbefore. Feeling dissatisfied, the convict has filed the instant criminal appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the kirch produced in the court was not the same which was allegedly seized from the accused. It was also argued that no independent witness was joined to witness the alleged recovery. It was also submitted that there are contractions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that statements of both the witnesses are sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Both witnesses of the prosecution have categorically stated about recovery of the prohibited weapon from the possession of the accused-appellant. Their statements could not be impeached in cross-examination. They had no motive to implicate the accused in a false case. Even the accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. has not alleged any ground for false implication nor any such suggestion was put to the prosecution witnesses in their cross-examination. Consequently, there is no reason to doubt or disbelive the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Their statements cannot be discarded merely because they are police officials. They had no enmity with the accused nor they had any illwill, malice or motive against Criminal Appeal No. 924-SB of 2000 -4- the accused to implicate him in a false case. Consequently, their statements are as credible as those of non-official witnesses. Moreover, HC Baljinder Singh PW1 has stated that no independent witness was available. The said statement is reliable because the recovery was effected after 9.00 PM. Consequently, non-joining of any independent witness is not fatal to the prosecution case. As regards production of weapon in court during trial, initially weapon of the main case was produced but since it was not weapon of this case, part examination of HC Baljinder Singh PW1 was deferred. At the time of his further examination, weapon of this case was produced. Consequently, it cannot be said that the weapon recovered from the accused was not produced in court during trial. As regards contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, there is no material contradiction therein. Both of them have made consistent statements about recovery of the weapon from the accused. Moreover, some minor contradictions are bound to occur even in the statements of truthful witnesses on account of different powers of perception, observation and memory. In the instant case, HC Baljinder Singh PW1 was examined on 20.9.1996 and 19.11.1996 i.e. more than two years after the occurrence whereas LC Sukhmander Singh PW2 was examined on 29.9.1998 i.e. more than four years after the occurrence. On account of lapse of this long period also, some minor contradictions in their statements pale into insignificance. Learned counsel for the appellant could not refer to any material contradiction in their statements. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that prosecution has led Criminal Appeal No. 924-SB of 2000 -5- sufficient, cogent and reliable evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction of the appellant is, thus, well founded. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant is upheld. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed for reduction in sentence. The prayer has been opposed by State counsel. I have carefully considered the matter. The accused was arrested on 16.7.1994. Perusal of trial court file reveals that he furnished bail bonds on 4.10.1994. Thus, he remained in custody for more than two and half months. Trial took more than six years. Now the instant appeal is pending for the last 11 years. The occurrence had taken place more than 17 years ago. The accused has faced agony of trial including this appeal during this long period of 17 years. The weapon recovered from the accused appellant is also not so dangerous. It was not fire arm. It was only kirch like knife with blade of prohibitive length. Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant by the trial Judge is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant in custody, while maintaining the sentence of fine. It is ordered accordingly. Fine stands paid in the trial court. Consequently, bail bonds of the appellant are discharged. With reduction in sentence as aforesaid, the instant criminal appeal stands disposed of accordingly. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 13, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'