Sultan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2240 MP

-1-                                             CRR No.993/2021

               HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                         BENCH AT INDORE
                          CRR NO.993/2021
        Sultan Singh s/o Abhaysingh Sikligar vs. State of M.P
10.06.2021: (INDORE):
      Shri M.I.Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Palash Choudhary, learned PL for the respondent/State.

Heard on the question of admission. Record perused. Admit.

With consent of parties, heard finally.

Applicant has filed the present revision being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.04.2019 passed by the JMFC, Khargone and judgment dated 12.02.2021 passed by IVth ASJ, West Nimar, Khargone whereby he has been convicted u/s 25(1)(a) & 25(1B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act.

As per prosecution case on 31.03.2014 the applicant was arrested while preparing country made pistol along with 7-8 persons and crime No.120/14 for the offence punishable u/s 25(1)(a) & 25(1B)

(a) of the Indian Arms Act was registered against him alone. At the time of arrest the applicant was manufacturing country made pistol, therefore, the police has seized raw material, fan, furnace, hammer etc. which he was using for the preparation of pistol.

After completing the investigation, Final Report ( Chalan) was filed. The applicant abjured his guilt and pleaded for trial. In order to prove the charges prosecution has examined 6 witnesses. In defence the applicant did not examine any witness. After appreciating the evidence came on record, learned Magistrate has convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. Thereafter, he preferred criminal appeal No.38/2019 and that too has been dismissed by the impugned judgment.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Courts below have committed an error in appreciating the evidence and convicting the applicant. Learned counsel submits that the seized articles were not produced before the trial Court, therefore, the entire conviction and

-2- CRR No.993/2021

sentence is bad in law. He has drawn attention of this Court to the statement of PW/3 Sukhram Silale, retired ASI who in para-5 of his statement has admitted that no seized article has been deposited in the Court along with the article A/1 i.e unfinished Pistol . He has also admitted that the chit attached with article A/1 is dated 4.4.2018 but the same article was seized on 31.3.2014. Despite that the applicant has been convicted and sentenced. Since the article related to manufacturing of country made pistol has not been produced before the Court, therefore, the conviction u/s 25(1)(a) is bad in law. The I.O has failed to give any explanation for not producing that article before the Court. He has also admitted that the Article A was not in working condition and no magazine or cartridge could be inserted in it, therefore, the same was not in the category of arms, hence the conviction of the applicant under section 25(1)(a) is unsustainable.

Learned panel lawyer opposes the aforesaid prayer by submitting that after appreciating the evidence came on record learned both the Courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced him.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

PW/1 & PW/2 Anand and Jirbhan have denied the seizure and the arrest of the applicant/accused. According to them, police has obtained their signatures on the blank papers in the Police Station . So far as PW/4 & PW/5 are concerned they were members of the police team and they visited Gram Singun where 7-8 persons were found preparing the country made pistols and they were arrested. According to them, all the 7-8 persons were brought to the police station, however, they do not know against how many persons case has been registered by the police. After going through the evidence I find that there is no corroborating evidence to support the I.O. PW/4 & PW/5 have also been declared hostile by the prosecution. There is a seizure memo of all the manufacturing material seized from the applicant but the same were not produced before the Court although the allegation against the applicant is that he was found manufacturing the arms within the territory of the prohibited districts during the period of

-3- CRR No.993/2021

externment which is a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution. There are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence which were overlooked by the trial Court. In view of the above, while maintaining the conviction and sentence of the applicant u/s 25(1B)(a), conviction and sentence u/s 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act being unsustainable are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. After undergoing the sentence of one year awarded u/s 25(1B)

(a) of the Arms Act and subject to deposit of the fine amount, the applicant be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence.

The Criminal Revision is party allowed. Record be sent back.

                                       (VIVEK RUSIA)
                                           JUDGE
        Digitally signed by HARI KUMAR
hk/     C G NAIR
        Date: 2021.06.15 12:18:10 +05'30'