Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1538 (PNJ)

Major Singh v. State of Haryana

2012-10-30

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - Tersely, the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, are that on 2.4.1997, petitioner-convict Major Singh son of Hardwari Lal was found in possession of one pistol without any valid permit or licence. On the basis of aforesaid recovery, a criminal case was registered against him, by virtue of FIR, bearing No.228 dated 2.4.1997, on accusation of having committed an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) by the police of Police Station City Kaithal. 2. After the completion of investigation, the police submitted the final police report (challan) and consequently, the trial Court framed the charge against the petitioner-convict to face the trial of indicated offence and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution. 3. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge framed against the petitioner-convict, examined PW1 C. Karnail Singh, PW2 HC Dhoop Singh, PW3 HC Multan Singh, PW4 HC Chander Singh, PW5 Subhash Chander, Reader to District Magistrate, Kaithal, PW6 Inspector Sumer Chand and PW7 ASI Ram Chander in oral evidence, besides tendering test report (Ex.PA), seizure memo (Ex.PB), FIR (Ex.PW4/A), endorsement (Ex.PW4/B), sanction order (Ex.PW5/A) and site plan (Ex.PW6/A) in documentary evidence. 4. Having closed the prosecution case, the statement of the petitioner-convict was recorded. The entire incriminating material appearing in the evidence, was put to enable him to explain any circumstance appearing against him in the evidence, as contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has stoutly denied all the evidence of the prosecution in its entirety and pleaded innocence & false implication. However, no evidence in defence was adduced by him. 5. Having completed all the codal formalities and taking into consideration the evidence on record, the trial Magistrate convicted & sentenced the petitioner-convict to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year, to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo SI for a period of three months for the commission of offence punishable u/s 25 of the Act, by means of impugned judgment of conviction dated 23.1.2006 and order of sentence dated 24.1.2006. 6. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner-convict was dismissed as well, by the appellate Court, by way of impugned judgment dated 15.7.2006. 7. The petitioner-convict still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant revision petition to challenge the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence of the Courts below, invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr.PC. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present revision petition, as regards the impugned judgments of conviction is concerned. 9. As is evident from the record that PW2 HC Dhoop Singh & PW6 Inspector Sumer Chand have categorically maintained, on oath, that one country made pistol of .315 bore was recovered from the possession of the petitioner-convict on the relevant date without any valid licence. PW1 C.Karnail Singh stated that the pistol in question was tested by him, vide his report (Ex.PA). PW4 HC Chander Singh recorded the formal FIR (Ex.PW4/A), on the basis of ruqqa sent by PW6 Sumer Chand. Instead of reproducing the entire statements in toto and in order to avoid repetition, suffice it to say that all the prosecution witnesses have duly corroborated its version on all vital counts. They were cross-examined at length, but no substantial material could be elicited in their cross examination to dislodge the prosecution version, which is otherwise duly proved by cogent, oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution. Their testimony cannot possibly be discarded merely on the ground that they are police officials, as urged on behalf of petitioner-convict. Moreover, all the other points, now sought to be urged by the learned counsel for petitioner have already been considered and negatived by the Courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioner convict did not point out any legal infirmity or major contradictions and inherent improbabilities, much less cogent, to discard the reliable and trustworthy evidence of the prosecution in this relevant connection. 10. Therefore, if the entire evidence of prosecution is perused and put together, then, to me, the conclusion is inescapable that the prosecution has duly proved the charge and the Courts below have rightly convicted the petitioner-convict, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 11. 10. Therefore, if the entire evidence of prosecution is perused and put together, then, to me, the conclusion is inescapable that the prosecution has duly proved the charge and the Courts below have rightly convicted the petitioner-convict, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 11. Faced with the situation, learned counsel has fairly acknowledged that he will not be in a position to contest the conviction of the petitioner any more, in view of the pointed cogent evidence brought on record by the prosecution. As no other legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the impugned judgments of conviction are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. Be that as it may, however, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner-convict is a poor person, he has already undergone the period of his substantive sentence of more than eight months out of the total sentence of one year and he is not a previous convict, so, there is a large scope of reduction in the period of sentence, has considerable force. This factual position is acknowledged by the learned State counsel. 13. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for parties, to my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be subserved if the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner-convict by the Courts below is reduced to already undergone by him, inter-alia, on the following grounds:- i) The recovery in this case is of 1.4.1997 and he has already faced the pangs and suffered the agony of protracted trial, appeal & revision for the last more than 15½ years. ii) As per the custody certificate, the petitioner-convict has already undergone the period of substantive sentence of more than eight months out of the total sentence of one year. iii) He is on bail. iv) He is a poor person. v) He is a first offender and is not a previous convict. vi) He is the only bread winner of his family. 14. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the revision petition filed by the petitioner-convict is hereby dismissed and the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence of fine imposed on the petitioner-convict are maintained. vi) He is the only bread winner of his family. 14. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the revision petition filed by the petitioner-convict is hereby dismissed and the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence of fine imposed on the petitioner-convict are maintained. However, taking into consideration the totality of the facts & circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year imposed by the trial Court is reduced to eight months, already undergone by him. Accordingly, the impugned order of sentence is modified to the extent and in the manner depicted here-in-before. 15. Needless to mention that necessary consequences & compliance will naturally follow accordingly.