Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 211 (PNJ)

Gopal v. State Of Haryana

2000-02-21

T.H.B.CHALAPATHI

body2000
Judgment T.H.B.Chalapathi, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar in Sessions Case No. 49 of 13.11.1995 (Sessions Trial No. 88 of 1995). 2. The accused-appellant was prosecuted for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act for being in possession of one .12 bore pistol alongwith a loaded cartridge and live cartridges. He was also prosecuted for the offence under Sections 399 and 402 IPC. According to the prosecution, the police received a secret information that the accused-appellant and six others were making preparation to commit a docoity. On receiving the information, a raiding party raided the house where the accused-appellant and others were staying on apprehending them, the police recovered one .12 bore pistol alongwith a loaded cartridge and 3 live cartridges from the possession of the accused. Therefore, the accused was prosecuted for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, framed a charge against the accused for the aforesaid offence. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined three witnesses and on a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Hence this appeal. 4. The evidence of PW 1 to 3 is consistent. Their evidence clearly shows that the fire arm was recovered from the possession of the accused. Nothing has been suggested to the witnesses to discredit their evidence. 5. After going through the evidence of record, I do not find any ground warranting interference with the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant was also prosecuted for the offence under Sections 399 and 402 IPC. In Sessions Case No. 35 of 1995 in which the accused was convicted for the aforesaid offences. In that case, the accused appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years for the offence under Section 399 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence under Section 402 IPC. The accused has been in jail for more than 4-1/2 years. In that case, the accused appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years for the offence under Section 399 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence under Section 402 IPC. The accused has been in jail for more than 4-1/2 years. Against his conviction and sentence in that case, the accused-appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 27-SB of 1998 in which the sentences for the offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC. have been reduced to a period of five years. 6. In these circumstances, I direct that the sentence in this appeal shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed on the accused-appellant in Sessions Case No. 35 of 1995. Orders accordingly.