Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 200 (PNJ)

Chamkaur Singh Alias Kauri v. State Of Punjab

2010-01-11

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2010
Judgment KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. Present appeal is directed against the judgment passed by additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby the appellant has been held guilty of offence under Sec.25 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. Counsel for the appellant has stated that appellant was named as accused in case FIR No.10 dated 19.01.1996 registered at Police Station Nihal singh Wala under Sec.25 of the Arms Act. It is submitted that the present fir is an offshoot of case FIR No.7 dated 19th January, 1996 registered at the same Police Station Nihal Singh Wala under Sections 399/402 IPC. Therefore, counsel has submitted that these very police witnesses have not been believed by the trial Court in the main trial, in which appellant was tried for offence under Sec.399/402 IPC. FIR Ex. PE/1 was recorded on the basis of ruqa Ex. PE sent by SI Jagjit Singh. 3. Prosecution case in brief can be stated as under. On 19th january, 1996 SI Jagjit Singh along with his companion police officials, was member of the raiding party headed by Inspector Gurmail Singh. The raid was conducted in the area of village Patto Hira Singh on the basis of a secret information. The appellant Chamkaur Singh along with his companions was apprehended and a separate case was registered under Sec.399/402 IPC. SI jagjit Singh affected arrest of accused Chamkaur Singh. From his possession, one country made pistol of 12 bore, along with two live cartridges, was recovered. Memo of possession was drawn and same was attested by constable dilbagh Singh and constable Tarsem Singh. SI Jagjit Singh prepared a ruqa Ex. PE and sent the same to Police Station for the registration of case. 4. On failure of the accused to produce any license, case was registered. The memo of recovery has been exhibited as Ex. PD. During the trial, pistol was exhibited as Ex. P1 and cartridges as Ex. P2 and P3. The pistol was found in the working order. 5. The prosecution, to prove the offence against the appellant, examined PW-1 Ramji Dass Reader to the District Magistrate, Moga, who proved order of sanction Ex. PA. PD. During the trial, pistol was exhibited as Ex. P1 and cartridges as Ex. P2 and P3. The pistol was found in the working order. 5. The prosecution, to prove the offence against the appellant, examined PW-1 Ramji Dass Reader to the District Magistrate, Moga, who proved order of sanction Ex. PA. PW-2 LC Jaswant Singh stated that on 16th February, 1996, HC Baljinder Singh of Police Station Nihal Singh Wala produced a 12 bore pistol of the accused before him. This witness had tested the same and gave test report Ex. PB. PW-3 LC Dilbagh Singh stated that on 19th January, 1996, he was posted in the CIA Staff, Moga. He was joined by Inspector Gurmail Singh as member of the raiding party, which consisted of various other police officials. During the investigation of case punishable under Sec.399/402 IPC, SI jagjit Singh apprehended the appellant and recovered one 12 bore pistol along with two live cartridges. In cross examination, he stated that at the spot no parcel was prepared of pistol and cartridges. He further stated that some respectables were sent from the village but nobody came forward to join the investigation. SI Jagjit Singh PW-4 also reiterated what was stated in the ruqa, on the basis of which FIR was registered. All the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused and his statement under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. was recorded. He denied the same and pleaded false implication. 6. Before the trial Court, it was urged that the appellant along with his companion, was arrested and challan for offences under Sec.399/402 ipc was presented and for those offences, they have been acquitted. Therefore, recovery of pistol and cartridges from the possession of the accused was in the same transaction and being inseparable, the recovery should also not be relied. This contention was not accepted by the trial Court on the ground that acquittal for offences under Sec.399/402 IPC was due to legal infirmity, as the prosecution failed to prove the offence under Sec.399/402 IPC against the accused. However, the trial Court held that the testimony of witnesses aspire confidence. Counsel for the appellant has not placed on record certified copy of the judgment whereby acquittal was recorded and the witnesses were commented upon. Counsel for the appellant is also not in a position to fortify his submission as to why examination of independent witness was necessary. However, the trial Court held that the testimony of witnesses aspire confidence. Counsel for the appellant has not placed on record certified copy of the judgment whereby acquittal was recorded and the witnesses were commented upon. Counsel for the appellant is also not in a position to fortify his submission as to why examination of independent witness was necessary. The counsel has read the testimony of witnesses and has urged that these witnesses should be disbelieved because these are the police witnesses. On the observation made by this Court that official witnesses cannot be disbelieved unless any foundation is laid, counsel for the appellant has contended that he will not assail conviction of the appellant but this Court should take into consideration the acquittal of the appellant for offence under Sec.399/402 IPC and the protracted trial as mitigating circumstances. Learned counsel has submitted that more than 14 years are going to elapse. Therefore, the sentence of the appellant should be reduced. It has further been submitted that the learned trial Court has awarded maximum sentence of three years. Sec.25 (1) (b) of the Arms Act prescribes three years as maximum punishment and one year as minimum punishment. 7. Mr. A. S. Jattana, Additional Advocate General, Punjab has stated that in case conviction of the appellant is maintained, he will have nothing to say regarding the reduction of the sentence, as the same is prerogative of the court. 8. Taking into consideration that appellant has suffered protracted trial, I find merit in the alternative prayer made by counsel for the appellant. Hence, sentence of the appellant is reduced from three years to one year rigorous imprisonment. 9. With the observations made above, present appeal is disposed of.