Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 677 (PNJ)

Hari Singh v. State of Punjab

2003-05-09

AMAR DUTT, VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Hari Singh son of Chuhar Singh was charged under Section 29 of the Arms Act (in short to be called the Act) for handing over his licensed rifle .315 bore to his son Kaka Singh alias Balwinder Singh, knowing well that the latter was not entitled to possess the same. Vide the impugned judgment dated December 18, 1995, he stands the convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Hence this appeal. 2. It is worth mentioning that the appellant alongwith his son Kaka Singh and other co-accused was also booked in the main case (FIR No. 152 dated 27.10.1988, under Sections 302/307/364/394/201 read with Section 34 and Sections 25/27/54 of the Arms Act Indian Penal Code, police station Malerkotla), for commission of the murder of Rajinder Singh and Sadhu Singh. He was, however, acquitted in the said case, whereas his co-accused were convicted. Kaka Singh also stands convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appeal filed by the co-accused in the main case also stands decided by us vide separate judgment of even date. 3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was arrested on 19.11.1988 on the ground that he had contravened the provisions of Section 29 of the Act by delivering possession of his licensed rifle .315 bore alongwith live cartridges of his son Kaka Singh alias Balwinder Singh who is main accused in the aforesaid case. 4. In order to connect the appellant with the offence, the prosecution has examined two witnesses; 5. Balbir Singh, Arms Licence Clerk (DW-1) has proved entry No. 758 dated 23.6.1971, vide which Arms Licence was issued in favour of Hari Singh in respect of .315 bore rifle bearing No. 5486 and it was renewed by the District Magistrate, Sangrur upto 22.6.1990. 6. Ajaib Singh, Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Patiala, (PW-2) is the Investigating Officer of the case, who has deposed that while investigating case FIR No. 152 dated 27.10.1988 under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, he interrogated Kaka Singh accused, who disclosed that he had kept concealed one rifle .315 bore along with a rexine bag containing cartridges in a sugar-cane field. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, Kaka Singh got recovered the said rifle and 15 cartridges. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, Kaka Singh got recovered the said rifle and 15 cartridges. He further deposed that subsequently it transpired from the record that the gun in question was in the name of the present appellant. 7. The stand taken by the appellant as emerges from his statement recorded under Section 312 Criminal Procedure Code, is that he had sent telegrams to the higher authorities regarding illegal detention and torture of his sons by the police, due to which the police forcibly took away his rifles and cartridges and planted this false case upon him. 8. On the basis of the abovesaid evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. 9. We have heard Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. G.S. Dhaliwal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. 10. Mr. Cheema has strenuously contended that the prosecution has not been able to produce any evidence to show that the licensed rifle was ever delivered by the appellant to his son Kaka Singh and thus the ingredients of Section 29(b) of the Arms Act are not proved and as such the appellant deserves acquittal. 11. On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that the gun of the appellant was used by his son Kaka Singh for committing murder of two persons, for which he (Kaka Singh) was separately booked and stands convicted. He then contends that from the documentary evidence it is proved that the gun in question belongs to the present appellant and as such he has no escape. 12. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that from the statement of Balbir Singh (PW1) it is proved that the licensed rifle bearing No. 5486 is entered in the name of the present appellant. It was renewed upto 22.6.1990. From the statement of Ajaib Singh Superintendent of Police (PW2), it is amply proved that the said rifle alongwith 15 cartridges was recovered from the exclusive possession of Kaka Singh, in pursuance of the disclosure made during his interrogation in the murder case. 13. From the foregoing discussion, it can safely be said that the appellant had delivered his licensed rifle (.315 bore alongwith the ammunition) to his son Kaka Singh alias Balwinder Singh, which was ultimately used for commission of the crime. 13. From the foregoing discussion, it can safely be said that the appellant had delivered his licensed rifle (.315 bore alongwith the ammunition) to his son Kaka Singh alias Balwinder Singh, which was ultimately used for commission of the crime. Thus, the charge against the appellant is proved to the hilt. The conviction recorded by the trial Court is hereby maintained. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it is stated that the appellant remained in custody for a considerable time during trial as he was also booked in the main case alongwith his co-accused. He was of the age of 66-67 years at the time of alleged occurrence. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, we feel that the ends of the justice would be adequately met if the sentence of substantive imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. It is ordered accordingly. With the modification in the quantum of sentence, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.