Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 256 (PNJ)

Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab

2004-03-03

S.S.GREWAL

body2004
JUDGMENT S.S. Garewal, J. - The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the judgment dated 18.9.91 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court to the petitioner has been confirmed. The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo RI for 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for three months vide order dated 30.8.1988 in case FIR No. 97 dated 16.7.1995 registered under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station Kartarpur, Jalandhar. 2. The prosecution story is that at around 5.45 p.m. on 16.7.1985, Swaran Singh, PW-3, the then D.S.P. City-II, Jalandhar received a secret information against the accused that he was in possession of a large quantity of arms and ammunition and that if a raid was conducted the same could be recovered from him. On this tip-off, he recorded a ruqa Ex.PD and sent it to Police Station, Kartarpur. On the basis of this, FIR Ex. PD/1 was registered. PW-3 alongwith some other police officials left for Village Naugajja in Government Matador No. PAQ-4594 and Government Jeep No. PAJ-8569. After joining Lashkar Singh, Ex-Sarpanch from the village, a raid was conducted in the house of the petitioner, who was found present there. PW-3, Swaran Singh arrested the petitioner and interrogated him in police custody. He suffered a disclosure statement that he had kept buried and concealed in a pit near the corner of his kitchen a stengun, two revolvers, one pistol and cartridges by wrapping them in a white gunny cloth and that he had their exclusive knowledge and could get the same recovered by giving nishan dehi. Accordingly, his disclosure statement Ex.PA was recorded which was signed in token of its correctness. Inspector Narinder Pal Singh, Amrik Singh and Ex-Sarpanch, Lashkar Singh attested it. Accordingly, his disclosure statement Ex.PA was recorded which was signed in token of its correctness. Inspector Narinder Pal Singh, Amrik Singh and Ex-Sarpanch, Lashkar Singh attested it. From the pointed place, recovery was effected and stengun mark II No. 6103-G with 23 live cartridges of 9 mm bore, one revolver mark 32 Pak Made with 4 cartridges of 9 mm bore, one revolver mark 32 Pak Made with 4 cartridges of 32 bore, one pistal 9 mm No. 36840 ES PANA ASTRA MOO 600/43, one revolver 455 bore Weblay mark-I whose number had been rubbed of but 27973 was legible, six spent cartridges and one missed 455 bore cartridge which were wrapped in a white gunny cloth. The petitioner could not produce a valid license or permit for keeping these arms and ammunition in his custody. 3. The accused was charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claims trial. In support of its version, the prosecution examined PW-1 Amrik Singh, PW-2 Narinder Pal Singh and PW-3 Swaran Singh, PW-4 Rajinder Kumar PW-5, Sant Ram and after tendering certain documents on record, closed its evidence. 4. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the petitioner pleaded false implication and claimed innocence. In his defence, he examined DW-1 Boota Ram, DW-2 Pakhar Singh and closed his evidence. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties at some length. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Lashkar Singh, Ex- Sarpanch who was an independent witness, has not been examined. When the prosecution does not examine independent witness, it casts a doubt on the prosecution version and the conviction should not be based on this. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred to the decisions of this Court in Mehnga Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1980 C.L.R. (Pb. & Hr.) 68; Pardeep v. The State of Haryana, 1988(1) RCR(Crl.) 409 (P&H), Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab 1989(1) CLJ (C. CR. & Rev.) 74, and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, 2001(4) RCR(Crl.) 759 (P&H). 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the case property was not sealed at the time of recovery and had been sent for testing after 8 months. So, there is no authenticity of the test report that the weapons were in working conditions. & Rev.) 74, and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, 2001(4) RCR(Crl.) 759 (P&H). 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the case property was not sealed at the time of recovery and had been sent for testing after 8 months. So, there is no authenticity of the test report that the weapons were in working conditions. So, no conviction can be based on the same and the petitioner is entitled for acquittal. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel argued that this is a case in which recovery was effected by the D.S.P. PW-3 on the secret information and prosecution evidence has not been discarded in the cross-examination. Even if, independent witness has not been examined, this casts no doubt on the prosecution version and the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. 9. There is no dispute that testimony of PWs shows that case property was not sealed at the spot and recovery was effected on 16.7.1985. On 17.3.1986, Head Armourer - Rajinder Kumar, tested the weapons and reported that they were in working condition. When the weapons were un-sealed and had been tested after 8 months no reliability can be placed on the test report. Further, the independent witness, Lashkar Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, had not been examined by the prosecution. This casts doubt on the prosecution version. It is well settled law that in case of secret information, the investigating agency must join some independent witnesses. This requirement of joining of independent witnesses is only to ensure that what the official witnesses are deposing is supported by such witnesses. In the present case, the only independent witnees, Ex-Sarpanch Lashkar Singh, has not been examined. In such a situation, where the only independent witness has not been examined, it will not be safe to accept the testimony of official witnesses alone. 10. PW-3, Swaran Singh, D.S.P. in his statement deposed that he had received a secret information on 16.7.1985 and conducted a raid and effected recovery on the same day. However, when examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code it was put to the accused that DSP Swaran Singh, PW-3, received a secret information on 16.5.1985 to which he denied. It was never put to the accused as to on which date, raid was conducted and recoveries effected. However, when examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code it was put to the accused that DSP Swaran Singh, PW-3, received a secret information on 16.5.1985 to which he denied. It was never put to the accused as to on which date, raid was conducted and recoveries effected. If the date of receipt of information put to the accused as 16.5.1985 is taken as the date on which the raid was conducted and recovery effected, even then no conviction can be based as in his statement, PW-3 deposed that he received the secret information on 16.7.1985 and the date of recovery and raid is the same. Accordingly, I do not feel safe to maintain the conviction of the petitioner. In view of my above detailed discussion, this Revision Petition is accepted and the judgment and order of the Courts below, convicting the petitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act, are set aside, and by giving benefit of doubt acquit him of the charge. Petition allowed.