Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2247 (PNJ)

Kima Singh v. State of Punjab

2011-12-21

L.N.MITTAL

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- Accused Kima Singh has filed this appeal impugning his conviction and sentence ordered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide judgment and order dated 06.03.2003 thereby convicting the accused-appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that the accused was arrested on 12.01.2001 in FIR No.3 dated 04.01.2001 under Sections 307 and 120-B IPC of Police Station Maur. The accused on 14.01.2001 made disclosure statement and got recovered one country made pistol and two live cartridges. On competition of investigation, police presented report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘Cr. P. C.’) for prosecution of the accused under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 3. Charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 was framed against the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, prosecution examined five witnesses. 5. Constable Sandhura Singh PW-1 and Head Constable Inderjit Singh PW-4 tendered their affidavits being formal witnesses. 6. ASI Nirmal Singh PW-2 and SI Sukhchain Singh PW-3 broadly stated according to prosecution version that the accused after making disclosure statement got recovered a .12 bore pistol along with two live cartridges. SI Sukhchain Singh also stated about investigation of the case conducted by him. 7. Ajit Singh, PW-5 Junior Assistant, proved sanction order issued by District Magistrate, Bathinda for prosecution of the accused under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 8. The accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. He alleged that he has been falsely implicated in this case to strengthen the main case under Section 307 IPC. 9. He did not lead any evidence in his defence. 10. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide impugned judgment and order dated 06.03.2003 convicted and sentenced the accused as already mentioned herinbefore. Feeling dissatisfied, convict has filed the instant criminal appeal. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their assistance. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that recovery was effected from open place accessible to all. Feeling dissatisfied, convict has filed the instant criminal appeal. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their assistance. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that recovery was effected from open place accessible to all. However, merely on this ground, the accused cannot be acquitted. The pistol along with cartridges had been concealed underneath the heap of bricks and therefore, the same were not visible to anyone or everyone passing from there. On the contrary, the accused stated that only he was aware of the pistol and the cartridges concealed at the stated place. 13. All the prosecution witnessed have fully supported the prosecution case. There is no reason why they would falsely implicate the accused in this case. It cannot be said that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case to strengthen the main case under Section 307 IPC because the pistol recovered from the accused was not even connected with the occurrence of the main case under Section 307 IPC. There is no reason why the police officials would plant the pistol and the live cartridges on the accused-appellant. Prosecution evidence is cogent and credible and is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Statements of the prosecution witnesses could not be shaken or impeached in their cross-examination. Conviction of the appellant is well founded. Accordingly impugned judgment of conviction of the appellant is upheld. 14. As regards quantum of sentence, perusal of the custody certificate reveals that the accused remained in custody as under trial for more than two years and thus he had already undergone his sentence. Consequently question of quantum of sentence is of academic interest only. 15. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant criminal appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. ----------