Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 224 (PNJ)

Sudhir v. State of Haryana

2001-02-15

K.S.GAREWAL

body2001
ORDER K.S. Garewal, J. - Sudhir has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad dated February 9, 2000, whereunder sentence passed on him for conviction under Section 95 of the Arms Act was suspended and he was given the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of one year subject to his furnishing probation bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount. 2. The appellant has also challenged his conviction for the offence. 3. Sudhir was taken in custody on July 1, 1996 in a case under Section 307 Indian Penal Code when he disclosed that he had concealed a spring actuated knife Ex.P-1, whereupon the knife was recovered from the place of concealment and FIR under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered. The learned trial Court accepted the prosecution evidence of Constable Raghbir PW1 and A.S.I. Manphool Singh PW 3 with regard to the recovery of the knife from the possession of the appellant and convicted him. However, he was given the benefit of probation and released on probation for a period of one year. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant and his co-accused Amar Chand (father) were tried for having inflicted injuries with a knife, but when the eye witness did not support the prosecution version, both the appellant and his father were acquitted of the charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code on February 9, 2000. Therefore, it is contended that the Arms Act case was also a false one, which had been foisted on the appellant in order to prop on the main case. 5. The contention of the appellant cannot be accepted as he was acquitted of the charge under section 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code after the main witness had resiled. It is not a case where it can be said that the case was a false one because the case had been registered on the complaint of the injured person and investigation was conducted. During the investigation, the investigator had succeeded in recovering the weapon of offence from the possession of the appellant. It is not a case where it can be said that the case was a false one because the case had been registered on the complaint of the injured person and investigation was conducted. During the investigation, the investigator had succeeded in recovering the weapon of offence from the possession of the appellant. If later on the injured person resiles and does not support the prosecution case, then it does not amount to completely washing off the fact of recovery of weapon of offence, which is made out from the statement of the witnesses who were examined in the connected Arms Act case. The charges in both cases were different and the evidence led in both cases was likewise different. In the present case, the evidence was accepted and conviction was recorded. This was not contrary to law. 6. After the appellant had been convicted for the possession of the knife, the trial court very appropriately suspended the sentence and gave him the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Had the appellant been convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code in the case, then he would not have been released on probation because of the gravity of the case for which he stood convicted. The trial court had correctly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and given the benefit if probation to the appellant. There does not seem to be any infirmity or illegality in the said order. 7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.