Delhi High Court

Smt Maya Devi vs State on 19 September, 2023

                          $~

                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          %                               Reserved on: September 01, 2023
                                                           Decided on: September 19, 2023

                          +      CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 & CRL.M(BAIL)1825/2017
                                 SMT MAYA DEVI                                  ..... Petitioner
                                                    Through:     Mr.     Ravinder    Kumar,
                                                                 Advocate with petitioner in
                                                                 person.

                                                    V
                                 STATE                                        ..... Respondent
                                                    Through:     Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State
                                                                 with   SI    Manish,   PS
                                                                 Welcome.

                                 CORAM
                                 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

                                 JUDGMENT

1. The present criminal revision petition is filed under section 397 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the

Code") read with section 401 of the Code to impugn the judgment

dated 13.09.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned

judgment") passed in Criminal Appeal bearing no 24/2017

(56/2017) titled as Maya Devi & Another V The State GNCT of

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 1 12:15:28 Delhi arising out of FIR bearing no 0242/2004 dated 29.07.2004

passed by the court of Sh. S.K. Malhotra, ASJ/FTC/e-Court,

Shahdara, Karkardooma, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the

"appellate court").

2. In backdrop of case briefly narrating the facts of the case are that

PW4 ASI Rajbir Singh along with HC Devender, PW2 Ct. Shiv Dutt

and Ct. Arun Kumar on 28.07.2004 were on patrolling duty at 100

futa road near Shiv Mandir and at about 9.15 pm received a secret

information that one person, namely, Nempal has kept illegal arms

and ammunition at his house bearing no E-151, Rajiv Gali, East

Babarpur and the said Nempal can be apprehended if the raid is

conducted. Accordingly, PW4 ASI Rajbir Singh constituted a raiding

party and requested 6-7 passersby to join the investigation but none

agreed and left the spot without disclosing their details. Thereafter,

PW4 ASI Rajbir Singh along with raiding party went to Yaad Ram

Gali and requested 4-5 passersby to join the investigation and PW3

Surender Kumar Parashar has agreed to join investigation. The

raiding party reached at Rajiv Gali where they again asked 4-5

passersby to join investigation but the public persons namely,

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 2 12:15:28 Ramphere, Jaibir Singh Pal and others did not agree to join the

raiding party. The raiding party led by PW4 ASI Rajbir Singh

knocked the door of the house at about 10.00 pm which was opened

by Maya Devi (hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner") and in the

meantime, one person whose name was later on disclosed as Nempal

and was husband of the petitioner ran away from the house. The

independent witness PW3 Surender Kumar Parashar was asked to

take personal search of the police officials and the house was

accordingly, searched by the raiding party. The raiding party during

the search of the house had seen one iron box which was lying in

open space i.e. angan (courtyard). The raiding party took the keys of

the box from the petitioner and opened said box wherein one printed

quilt (rajai) was found. One polythene bag was found under the quilt

which was found to be containing desi katta Ex. P1, one country

made pistol Ex. P2, 7 empty cartridges of .315 bore Ex. P4, one

brown belt containing 16 live cartridges Ex. P5 and4 boxes of

cartridges each containing 10 cartridges Ex. P6 were found. PW4

ASI Rajbir Singh passed on the information to the senior

officers.SHO, PS Welcome, at about 10.40 pm also came at the spot

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 3 12:15:28 and interrogated the petitioner who on interrogation disclosed that

recovered arms and ammunition belong to her husband namely

Nempal. The ACP, PS Shahdara at about 10.55 pm also came at the

spot and made enquiries from the petitioner. The photographs of the

spot were taken. PW4 ASI Rajbir Singh prepared the sketches of desi

katta and revolver which are Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B. The

recovered arms and ammunition were seized vide seizure memo

(Ex/PW2/C) after converting into pullandas which were sealed with

the seal of 'RBS'. CFSL form was filled and the seal after use was

handed over to PW2 Ct. Shiv Dutt. PW4 ASI Rajbir Singh prepared

rukka (Ex. P4/A) which was sent to the police station for registration

of case through PW2 Ct. Shiv Dutt. FIR bearing no 242/14

(Ex.PW1/B) was got registered. PW9 SI Arvind Sagar conducted the

further investigation and during further investigation arrested the

petitioner vide arrest and personal search memos Ex. PW2/D and

Ex.PW2/E, prepared site plan and recorded the statement of public

witness i.e. PW3 Surender Kumar Parashar. PW9 SI Arvind Sagar

along with PW2 Ct. Shiv Dutt on 29.07.2004 arrested accused

Nempal vide arrest and personal search memos Ex. PW2/F and Ex.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 4 12:15:28 PW2/G and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW2/H. The

accused Dutta Ram was also arrested on the basis of disclosure

statement made by accused Nempal. The case property was sent to

FSL for forensic analysis. The charge sheet was filed after conclusion

of investigation.

2.1 The court of Sh. Ankur Jain, Metropolitan Magistrate,

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi vide order dated 29.01.2010 framed

charges for the offences punishable under section 25 of the Arms

Act, 1959 against the petitioner and accused Nempal, to which they

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused Dutta Ram was

ordered to be discharged as there was no incriminating evidence

against him except the disclosure statement of the accused Nempal.

2.2 The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses including ASI Rajbir

Singh as PW4 and Ct. Shiv Dutt as PW2 who were the members of

the raiding party, Investigating Officer SI Arvind Sagar and DCP

Jaspal Singh as PW11who granted the sanction under section 39 of

the Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution evidence also examined other

police officials who participated in the investigation. The prosecution

evidence was ordered to be closed vide order dated 05.11.2015. The

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 5 12:15:28 statement of the petitioner and accused Nempal were recorded under

section 313 of the Code vide proceedings dated 20.11.2016 wherein

they pleaded false implication and their innocence by stating that the

alleged recovery is planted on them but preferred not opt to lead

defence evidence.

3. The court of Sh. Pranjal Aneja, Metropolitan Magistrate-01,

Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts (hereinafter referred to as "the trial

court") vide judgment dated 08.10.2016 convicted the petitioner and

Nempal for the offence punishable under section 25 of the Arms Act,

1959 and vide order on sentence dated 18.03.2017sentenced them to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine

of Rs.2,000/- each in default of fine to additionally undergo simple

imprisonment for 15 days. The relevant portion of the judgment dated

08.10.2016 is reproduced verbatim as under:-

8. From the above appreciation of evidence it is seen that the prosecution has been able to establish its case. It has been duly proved on record that the illegal arms and cartridges have been recovered from the house of the accused and accused no. I Maya Devi was present at that time in her house. The co accused i.e her husband namely Nempal, who absconded at the time of raid, was arrested later on. There is no dispute that the arms and cartridges are illegal and accused persons posses no license for the same. The recovery has been duly proved. In examination

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 6 12:15:28 u/s 313 Cr.P.C the accused persons simply stated that the recovery is planted. Accused persons did not opt to lead DE. Thus the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of both accused Maya Devi and, Nempal beyond reasonable doubt.

9. Both accused persons Maya Devi and Nempal are accordingly convicted under section 25 Arms Act, 1959.

The relevant portion of the order on quantum of sentence dated

18.03.2017 dated is reproduced below:-

In the present case, the accused persons have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 25 of the Arms Act for unlawfully possessing arms &ammunitions without licence i.e. in violation of Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959. The punishment provided for the offence u/s 25(1-B) is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and shall be also be liable to fine. There can be no denial to the fact that both the convicts are aged and one of them is a lady. It is further seen that the case is of year 2004 and the trial continued for considerable long period of about 12 years, Hence, in the overall conspectus of the case and considering the aforesaid circumstances, both convicts are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the minimum period prescribed i.e one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- (Two thousand) each. In default of payment of fine, convict to additionally undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days.

Benefit of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. is given to the convicts for the period already undergone by them which shall be set off from the term of imprisonment as imposed.

4. The petitioner and convict Nempal being aggrieved filed Criminal

Appeal bearing no 24/2017 (56/2017) to impugn judgment dated

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 7 12:15:28 08.10.2016 and order on sentence dated 18.03.2017 passed by the

trial court. The appellate court vide impugn judgment acquitted the

convict Nempal and upheld the conviction of the petitioner. The

relevant para of the impugn judgment is reproduced verbatim as

under:-

10. As per CFSL result, recovered countrymade pistol, revolver and cartridges are arms and ammunitions as defined in the Arms Act, 1959. PW-11 Sh. Jaspal Singh the then DCP granted the sanction u/s.39 Arms Act qua appellant/accused Maya Devi vide Ex. PWll/A. Thus, finding of Ld. Trial Court that illegal arms and ammunitions were recovered at the instance of appellant Maya Devi from H.No.E-51, Rajiv Gali No.4, Yadram Mandir, Babarpur, Delhi are upheld. Ld. Trial Court has already awarded minimum sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year to the appellant while keeping in view the fact that she is an old age lady, therefore, no interference in order on sentence is required.

11. Now coming to the role of appellant no.2 Nempal, it is admitted case of the prosecution that at the time of recovery of abovesaid arms and ammunitions, Nempal was not present there. He was arrested later on as co- accused/appellant no.l Maya Devi informed the police that he is her husband, who ran away at the time of raid. One important aspect, which has been overlooked by Ld. Trial Court is that no sanction u/s. 39 Arms Act was granted by the competent authority to prosecute appellant/accused Nempal. Sanction u/s. 39 Arms Act (Ex.PWl 1/A) is only in respect of appellant Maya Devi. Section 39 of Arms Act provides that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence without previous sanction of District Magistrate. In the absence of sanction u/s. 39

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 8 12:15:28 Arms Act to prosecute appellant no.2 Nempal, his conviction u/s. 25 Arms Act cannot be sustained. Accordingly, he is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged. However, in view of provisions of section 437- A of the Code, accused Nempal is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount within one week. Till then his existing bail bond shall be retained for the purpose. The bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months.

12. With these observations, appeal is partly allowed qua Appellant/accused Nempal. As the conviction and order on sentence dt. 18.03.2017 as passed by Ld. Trial Court, qua appellant no. 1 Maya Devi is upheld, she be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence. A copy of this judgment be given to convict/appellant Maya Devi free of cost. Trial Court record alongwith copy of this order be sent back. Appeal file be consigned to record room.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved filed the present petition and

challenged the impugned judgment passed by the appellate court;

judgment dated 08.10.2016 and order on sentence dated 18.03.2017

passed by the trial court on the grounds that the Investigating Officer

did not seize the iron box, which was stated to be lying in the open

courtyard (angan) from wherein the arms and ammunition were

recovered and its lock and key were also not produced in the court.

The petitioner who is an illiterate lady and is aged about more than

55 years has nothing to do with the alleged offence. The prosecution

has failed to prove its allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 9 12:15:28 is not a previous convict and no other case is pending against her.

There are contradiction in the respective testimonies of PW3

Surender Kumar Parashar and PW4 ASI Rajbir Singh. PW3 Surender

Kumar Parashar who was stated to be the public witness did not

identify the petitioner and convict Nempal during deposition. The

petitioner was residing in tenanted premises where other three tenants

were also residing but none of them has joined the raiding party as

public witness.

6. The counsel for the petitioner besides narrating the facts of the

case argued that the petitioner being the housewife was not aware

about the recovered arms and ammunition and as such was not

having conscious knowledge about the recovered fire arms and

ammunition. The petitioner was not in physical possession of the fire

arms and the secret information was also received against her

husband i.e. Nempal. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon

the judgments titled as Gunvant Lal V State of Madhya Pradesh,

1972 2 SCC 194, Abid Qureshi V State of GNCT Delhi & others,

(2021) 29 Del CK 0308, Ravi Inder Singh Johar V State of GNCT

Delhi, (202@) 05 Del CK 0114, Ambi Ram V State of

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 10 12:15:28 Uttarakhand, (2019) 17 SCC 396, Faiyaz Ahmad & Others V

State of Bihar, 1991 Supp(1) SCC 186, Sattan Sahani V State of

Bihar,(2002) 7 SCC 604 and Gulab Singh V State of MP, 1987 JLJ

7. The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent argued

that the petitioner was found in conscious possession of the arms and

ammunition i.e. desi katta (Ex. P1), one country made pistol (Ex. P2),

7 empty cartridges (Ex. P4), one brown belt containing 16 live

cartridges (Ex. P5) and 4 boxes of cartridges each containing 10

cartridges (Ex. P6) which were recovered from the house which was

under the occupation of the petitioner. He further argued that the

present petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 provides punishment for certain

offences. As per section 25 (1B) whoever has in his possession or

carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of section 3 shall

liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be

less than one year but which may extend to three years and shall also

be liable to fine. However, the Court may for any adequate and

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 11 12:15:28 special reasons to be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of

imprisonment for a term of less than one year.

9. A witness who has to play important role in administration of

criminal justice has relevant information about a crime. The witness

by giving evidence performs a sacred duty of assisting the court in

discovery of the truth and plays an important duty of assisting the

court in deciding on the guilt or otherwise of the accused. It is the

salutary duty of every witness to assist the State in giving evidence.

The court after considering evidence decides whether the accused is

guilty or innocent. The Supreme Court in Mahender Chawla V

Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156 / 2016 decided on

05th December, 2018 also observed that witnesses are important

players in the judicial system, who help the judges in arriving at

correct factual findings. The prosecution in support of its case

examined PW4 ASI Rajbir Singh and PW2 Ct. Shiv Dutt who were

members of the raiding party. It is reflecting from the evidence led by

the prosecution that PW4 ASI Rajbir Singh 28.07.2004 received

secret information regarding the presence of arms and ammunition in

the house bearing no E-151, Rajiv Gali, East Babarpur belonging to

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 12 12:15:28 Nempal and a raiding party was constituted comprising PW4 ASI

Rajbir Singh, HC Devender, PW2 Ct. Shiv Dutt and Ct. Arun Kumar

and was also joined by public person PW3 Surender Kumar Parashar.

Thereafter a raid was conducted at House no E-151, Rajiv Gali and

the petitioner was found to be present in the said house at that time

and on search one polythene bag containing desi katta Ex. P1, one

country made pistol Ex. P2, 7 empty cartridges of .315 bore Ex. P4,

one brown belt containing 16 live cartridges Ex. P5 and 4 boxes of

cartridges each containing 10 cartridges Ex. P6. The perusal of

respective testimonies of PW4 ASI Rajbir Singh and PW2 Ct. Shiv

Dutt reflects they supported case of prosecution and deposed about

receipt of secret information on 28.07.2014 regarding presence of

illegal arms and ammunition in house which was found to be in

occupation of the petitioner and subsequent recovery of desi katta Ex.

P1, one country made pistol Ex. P2, 7 empty cartridges of .315 bore

Ex. P4, one brown belt containing 16 live cartridges Ex. P5 and 4

boxes of cartridges each containing 10 cartridges Ex. P6. The

respective testimonies of PW4 ASI Rajbir Singh and PW2 Ct. Shiv

are consistent, cogent and narrative of relevant facts. There is nothing

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 13 12:15:28 inherent inconsistent in their respective testimonies and can be safely

relied on. The prosecution also examined SI Arvind Sagar as PW9

who conducted further investigation and arrested the petitioner,

Jaspal Singh, then DCP, North-East who granted permission Ex.

PW11/A under section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959 and other police

officials who directly indirectly connected with investigation.The

prosecution witnesses were cross examined on behalf of the

petitioner and there is nothing in their cross examination which can

shake credibility of their testimonies. The petitioner did not take

substantial defence either in cross examination of witnesses

examined by the prosecution or in statement under section 313 of the

Code except to deny incriminating evidence and planting of alleged

arms and ammunition. It is proved that arms and ammunition as

detailed hereinabove were recovered at instance of the petitioner

from the quality and quantity of evidence led by the prosecution. The

prosecution also proved that case property after recovery and till it

was deposited in FSL, Hyderabad was not tempered with. PW4 ASI

Rajbir Singh deposed that case property as detailed hereinabove was

seized vide seizure memo Ex. PE2/C and converted into pullandas

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 14 12:15:28 which were sealed with seal of RBS. PW9 SI Arvind Sagar who was

entrusted with subsequent investigation also deposed that PW4 ASI

Rajbir Singh handed over two pullanda containing katta and three

pullanda containing cartridges sealed with seal of RBS. The

prosecution also examined MHC(M) ASI Mahender Singh as PW6

who deposed that on 29.07.2004 PW4 ASI Rajbir Singh deposited

five pullanda sealed with seal of RBS through PW9 SI Arvind Sagar

which were deposited in malkhana vide Entry 1483in Register no 19

A Ex. PW6/A. PW6 ASI Mahender Singh also deposed that he

handed over pullanda along with FSL Form vide RC no 130/21 to Ct.

Rishiraj on 23.09.2004 and case property was not tempered with till it

remain in his possession.

10. The counsel for the petitioner attacked quality and quantity of the

evidence led by the prosecution by arguing that there are material

contradictions in the respective testimonies of the prosecution

witnesses i.e. PW3 Surender Kumar Parashar and PW4 ASI Rajbir

Singh.PW3 Surender Kumar Parashar deposed that Investigating

Officer PW4 ASI Rajeev Singh opened the iron box lying in the

courtyard and recovered the arms and ammunition from said box

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 15 12:15:28 whereas Investigating Officer PW4 ASI Rajbir Singh deposed that

obtained the key from the petitioner to open the iron box which was

lying in the courtyard (angan) and recovered the arms and

ammunition.

10.1Every contradiction, discrepancy or improvement is not fatal for

prosecution. Mere marginal variations in the statements of witnesses

cannot be dubbed as improvements. It is only major contradiction,

discrepancy or improvement on material facts shaking very genesis

of prosecution case which matters for creating doubt on prosecution

case. The Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal V State

of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2015) 7 SCC 48 held that when a

witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make

some discrepancies and no true witness can possibly escape from

making some discrepant details. It was further observed that the

courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the

evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his

version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. It was

also observed in Bhagwan Jagannath Markad and Others V State

of Maharashtra, (2016) 10 SCC 537 observed that some

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 16 12:15:28 discrepancies not touching the core of the case are not enough to

reject the evidence as a whole and no true witness can escape from

giving some discrepant details. It was also observed that

discrepancies may arise due to error of observations, loss of memory

due to lapse of time, mental disposition such as shock at the time of

occurrence and as such the normal discrepancy does not affect the

credibility of a witness. The discrepancies as pointed out by the

counsel for petitioner are insignificant, immaterial and minor which

do not affect case of prosecution and as such argument advanced by

the counsel for the petitioner is without any legal force.

11. The counsel for the petitioner also argued that the as per

prosecution, public witness PW3 Surender Kumar Parashar was

included in investigation but he turned hostile and did not support the

case of the prosecution which raises serious doubts as to the

prosecution story.

11.1 The Investigating Officer PW4 ASI Rajbir Singh deposed that

after receipt of secret information, a raiding party was constituted and

reached Yad Ram Gali where PW3 Surender Kumar Parashar had

agreed to join investigation. The prosecution has examined Surender

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 17 12:15:28 Kumar Parashar as PW3 but PW3 Surender Kumar Parashar in

examination-in-chief turned hostile and did not support the case of

the prosecution. PW3 Surender Kumar Parashar deposed that he did

not remember date, time and place of incident due to lapse of long

time and also did not identify the petitioner and Nempal. PW3

Surender Kumar Parashar was cross-examined by the Additional

Public Prosecutor and in cross examination he supported the case of

the prosecution. PW3 Surender Kumar Parashar in cross examination

deposed about receipt of secret information and recovery of arms and

ammunition and about subsequent investigation. PW3 Surender

Kumar Parashar was not cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner

and Nempal. The appellate court in impugned judgment has rightly

dealt with this argument regarding testimony of PW3 Surender

Kumar Parashar. The relevant portion of the said judgment is

reproduced verbatim as under:-

PW-3 Surender Kumar Parashar, who joined the raiding team was declared hostile by Ld. Addl. PP but in cross- examination, he has admitted that he alongwith ASI Rajbir and other police staff went to a house, which was opened by a lady namely Maya Devi. He has also supported the case of prosecution regarding the recovery of arms and ammunitions as per seizure memo and admitted his signatures on the sketch of recovered weapons. Although,

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 18 12:15:28 he did not identify accused persons but he was not crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel. Even a suggestion was not given to this witness regarding the recovery of arms and ammunition fromH.No.E-51, Rajiv Gall No.4, Yadram Mandir, Babarpur, Delhi.

In Gura Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2001 SC 330, it was observed as follows:

"There appears to be a misconception regarding the effect on the testimony of a witness declared hostile. It is a misconceived notion that merely because a witness is declared hostile his entire evidence should be excluded or rendered unworthy of consideration. This court in Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 202 held that merely because the Court gave permission to the Public Prosecutor to cross-examine his own witness describing him as hostile witness does not completely efface his evidence. The evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base conviction upon the testimony of such witnesses. "

In Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 170, it was observed that "by giving permission to cross- examine nothing adverse to the credit of the witness is decided and the witness does not become unreliable only by his declaration as hostile. Merely on this ground his whole testimony cannot be excluded from consideration. In a criminal trial where a prosecution witness is crossexamined and contradicted with the leave of the Court by the party calling him for evidence cannot, as a matter of general rule, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Court of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction the witness stands discredited or can still be believed in regard to any part of his testimony. In appropriate cases the Court can rely upon the part of testimony of such witness if that part of the deposition is found to be creditworthy. "

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 19 12:15:28 11.2 It is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is

necessary for proving or disproving a fact. The test is whether the

evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or

otherwise. It was observed in Kuna @ Sanjaya Behera V State of

Odisha, 2017 SCC Online Supreme Court 1336 that it is not the

number of witnesses but the quality of evidence that is important.

The Supreme Court in Veer Singh & others V State of UP, (2014) 2

SCC 455 observed that legal system has laid emphasis on value,

weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or

plurality of witnesses. Evidence must be weighed and not counted. It

is quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of

evidence. Regarding testimony of hostile witness,the evidence of the

hostile witness cannot be rejected and evidence of such a person does

not become effaced from the record. The relevant portions of the

evidence of a hostile witness can be used in appropriate situations

such as to corroborate the evidence of other independent witnesses in

material particulars. The evidence of a hostile witness has to be

considered with caution. The Supreme Court in various decisions

discussed admissibility of testimony of a hostile witness. The

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 20 12:15:28 Supreme Court in State of U.P. V Ramesh Prasad Misra, (1996) 10

SCC 360 held that the evidence of a hostile witness would not be

totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused

but it can be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the

evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or

defence may be accepted. The Supreme Court in C. Muniappan V

State of T.N., (2010) 9 SCC 567 held that the evidence of a hostile

witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof

which are admissible in law can be used by the prosecution or the

defence. The Supreme Court in Shyamal Ghosh V State of West

Bengal, (2012) 7 SCC 646 while discussing

the evidentiary value of hostile witness, held that the statement

of hostile witness can be relied upon by the Court to the extent it

supports the case of prosecution. The Supreme Court in Arjun V

State of C.G., 2017 (2) MPLJ (Cri) 305 held that merely because the

witnesses have turned hostile in part their evidence cannot be rejected

in toto. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced

altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their

version is found to be dependable and the court shall examine more

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 21 12:15:28 cautiously to find out as to what extent he has supported the case of

the prosecution.

11.3 The testimony of a hostile witness cannot be rejected merely on

ground that said witness was declared as hostile and appears not to be

supporting the case of prosecution. The part of testimony of a hostile

witness can be read and relied on if it inspire confidence of the court

and appears to be consistent and cogent. PW3 Surender Kumar

Parashar although did not support case of prosecution in examination

in chief but supported case of the prosecution in cross examination

conducted by the Additional Public Prosecutor. If the cross

examination of PW3 Surender Kumar Parasher is read in light of

testimonies of witnesses who were members of the raiding party then

it inspire confidence and can be safely relied on and it is narrative of

relevant facts regarding circumstances led to recovery of arms and

ammunition from the petitioner. The cross examination of PW3

Surender Kumar Parashar is corroborated by testimonies of

prosecution witnesses. The argument advanced by the counsel for the

petitioner is without any legal force.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 22 12:15:28

12. The counsel for the petitioner primarily argued that it is not

proved that the petitioner was in conscious possession of arms and

ammunition as detailed herein above as alleged from evidence led by

the prosecution. The counsel in support of arguments cited Gunwant

Lal V State of Madhya Pradesh, (1972) 2 SCC 194, wherein the

Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held as under:-

5. ...The possession of a firearm under the Arms Act in our view must have, firstly the element of consciousness or knowledge of that possession in the person charged with such offence and secondly where he has not the actual physical possession, he has none-the-less a power or control over that weapon so that his possession thereon continues despite physical possession being in someone else. If this were not so, then an owner of a house who leaves an unlicensed gun in that house but is not present when it was recovered by the police can plead that he was not in possession of it even though he had himself consciously kept it there when he went out. Similarly, if he goes out of the house during the day and in the meantime someone conceals a pistol in his house and during his absence, the police arrives and discovers the pistol he cannot be charged with the offence unless it can be shown that he had knowledge of the weapon being placed in his house. And yet again, if a gun or firearm is given to his servant in the house to clean it, though the physical possession is with him nonetheless possession of, it will be that of the owner. The concept of possession is not easy to comprehend as writers of (sic) have had occasions to point out. In some cases under Section 19(1)(f) of the Arms Act, 1878 it has been held that the word "possession" means exclusive possession and the word "control" means effective control but this does, not solve the problem. As we said earlier, the first precondition

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 23 12:15:28 for an offence under Section 25(1)(a) is the element of intention, consciousness or knowledge with which a person possessed the firearm before it can be said to constitute an offence and secondly that possession need not be physical possession but can be constructive, having power and control over the gun, while the person to whom physical possession is given holds it subject to that power and control.. .

12.1 The testimony of PW4 ASI Rajbir Singh supported by testimony

of PW2 Ct. Shiv Dutt and cross examination of PW3 Surender

Kumar Parashar proved that arms and ammunition as detailed

hereinabove were recovered at instance of the petitioner from house

which was under occupation of the petitioner and at instance of the

petitioner. It cannot be said that the petitioner was not in conscious

possession of arms and ammunition i.e. desi katta Ex. P1, one

country made pistol Ex. P2, 7 empty cartridges of .315 bore Ex. P4,

one brown belt containing 16 live cartridges Ex. P5 and 4 boxes of

cartridges each containing 10 cartridges Ex. P6 contained in a

polythene bag and recovered from iron box. It was observed by the

Supreme Court in Sanjay Dutt V State through CBI Bombay (II),

Crimes 1994 (3) 344 (SC)that the word 'possession' is not preceded

by any adjective like 'knowingly', yet it is common ground that in the

context the word 'possession' must mean possession with the requisite

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 24 12:15:28 mental element, that is, conscious possession and not mere custody

without the awareness of the nature of such possession and there is a

mental element in the concept of possession. It is proved beyond

reasonable doubt that the petitioner was in conscious possession of

recovered arms and ammunition.

13. The trial court vide judgment dated 20.09.2016 convicted the

petitioner and Nempal for offence punishable under section 25 of the

Arms Act, 1959 and vide order on sentence dated 18.03.2017

sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for the minimum

period prescribed i.e. one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in

default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment

for fifteen days. The benefit of section 428 of the Code was extended

to the convicts. The appellate court vide impugned judgment

acquitted Nempal for offence under section 25 of the Arms Act,

1959.

14. In the adversarial system every person accused of an offence is

presumed to be innocent and burden lies upon the prosecution to

establish guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Doubt

must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of accused

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 25 12:15:28 arising from the evidence or lack of it, as opposed to mere

apprehensions and conjecture and surmises. The Supreme Court in

case Shivani V State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2662

emphasized that jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocent

must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make criminal justice

potent and realistic. In Gurbachan Singh V Sat Pal Singh, AIR

1990 SC 209 it was observed that exaggerated devotion to the rule of

benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering

suspicions and there by destroy social defence. The prosecution from

quality and quantity of evidence led by it proved guilt of the

petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment passed

by the appellate court and judgment dated 20.09.2016 and order on

sentence dated 18.03.2017 passed by the trial court are well reasoned

and no ground is made out to interfere with judicial pronouncements

by the courts below.

15. The counsel for the petitioner also prayed for lenient view by

arguing that the petitioner is an old aged lady and is suffering from

various ailments. The petitioner has already lost her young son. The

petitioner has already undergone seven months imprisonment. It is

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:20.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 777/2017 Page 26 12:15:28 duty of court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of

the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed

etc. The undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do

more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence

in the efficacy of law. The appellate court and trial court has already

taken lenient view after considering all facts and circumstances

pertaining to the petitioner and has awarded only minimum sentence.

Hence, the present criminal revision petition is dismissed along with

pending applications. The petitioner is directed to surrender before

the concerned trial court on 27.09.2023 at 11:00 AM to serve

remaining part of sentence imposed by the trial court vide order on

sentence dated 18.03.2017. In case the petitioner fails to surrender

before the trial court on the given date and time, the trial court shall