Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 June, 2023
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 15th OF JUNE, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No.653 of 2023
Between:-
VIJAY SINGH S/O GOVIND SINGH THAKUR,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION-
LABOUR R/O VILLAGE BIHARIPURA
P.S.MOHANGARH, DISTRICT TIKAMGARH
(M.P.)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI BASANT RAJ PANDEY- ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE
STATION MOHANGARH DISTRICT
TIKAMGARH (M.P.).
......RESPONDENT
( SHRI S.M. PATEL - PANEL LAWYER)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESERVED ON : 10.05.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 15.06.2023
_____________________________________________________
This criminal revision coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble
Shri Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, passed the following:
ORDER
This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of
Cr.P.C has been preferred by the applicant assailing the appeal
judgment dated 10.01.2023 passed by II nd Addl. Sessions Judge to
the Court of Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Cr.A.No.74/2022
(Vijay Singh Vs. State of M.P.) whereby applicant's conviction for
commission of offence under Section 25(1-b)(a) of Arms Act and
sentence of 01 year RI with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation
by the learned JMFC, Tikamgarh vide judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 27.04.2022 passed in Criminal Case
No.15202274/2014, has been affirmed.
2. As per the prosecution story on 05.11.2014 Sub Inspector
Mansharam Bagen of P.S. Mohangarh during his beat visit received
secret information that Vijay Singh s/o Govind Singh armed with
illegal country made pistol at village Jagatnagar is threatening to
public at large. At this, he alongwith witnesses and police force
reached on the spot encircled and apprehended accused Vijay Singh.
In search, one 12 bore country made pistol alongwith one 12 bore
live cartridge was seized from shirt and pant worn by him. He was
asked to produce the license for possessing the same but he could
not produce any license. The aforesaid country made pistol Article
A-1 and live cartridges Article A-2 were seized and sealed before the
witnesses in presence of the applicant-accused. Seizure memo
(Ex.P/1) was prepared. Accused was arrested and arrest memo
(Ex.P/2) was prepared. After returning to police station, F.I.R
(Ex.P/8) was registered at entry No.194/2014. After investigation
charge sheet was filed.
3. Learned trial court framed the charges against the
applicant/accused for commission of offence under section 25(1-b)
(a) of the Arms Act. Accused abjured the guilt and claimed to be
tried.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 07 witnesses
while accused did not examine any witness in his defence. After
hearing the parties, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the
applicant as mentioned hereinabove.
5. Applicant challenged the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence by preferring appeal before the court of Sessions but the
same was dismissed by IInd Addl. Sessions Judge to the Court of Ist
Addl. Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh vide impugned judgment dated
10.01.2023. Hence, this revision.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant assailing the findings
recorded by the courts below has submitted that the independent
witnesses of the seizure memo have not supported the seizure of
Article A-1 country made pistol and Article A-2 live cartridge seized
from the possession of the applicant. In such circumstances, learned
courts below were not justified in convicting and sentencing the
applicant relying on the evidence of official police witnesses. Thus,
the findings of conviction as recorded by the courts below are
illegal, incorrect and improper and prayed for acquittal of the
applicant/accused by setting aside the judgment passed by the courts
below.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has supported
the findings recorded by the courts below and has submitted that the
learned courts below after appreciating the evidence of witnesses
have rightly convicted the applicant and have awarded minimum
prescribed sentence of one year for commission of offence.
Therefore, it is prayed that when concurrent findings of the courts
below are available this court should refrain from interfering such
the findings recorded by the courts below.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the courts below.
9. Sub Inspector Mansharam Bagen (P.W.7) has deposed that on
05.11.2014, he alongwith police force had left the police station for
village Gaur. He had entered his departure in Rojnamcha Sanha at
No. 130 dated 05.11.2014. It is further deposed that during area
patrolling, he had received information that in village Jagatnagar,
one Vijay S/o Govind Singh R/o Biharipura armed with country
made pistol is intimidating the village people. At this, he alongwith
his staff reached in the village Jagtnagar encircled the accused and
apprehended. Article A-1 country made pistol and Article A-2 live
cartridge was seized from his pant and waist. Accused was asked to
produce the license for possessing the arms and ammunition but he
could not produce any license. Consequently, the country made
pistol Article A-1 and live cartridge Article A-2 were seized and
seizure memo Ex.P/1 was prepared. Accused was arrested and arrest
memo Ex.P/2 was prepared. After returning to police station
alongwith seized articles and accused, he entered his arrival in the
Rojnamcha Sanha at No.136 dated 5.11.2014 and registered the F.I.R
(Ex.P.8) at Crime No.194/14.
10. The aforesaid evidence of S.I. Mansharam Bagen (P.W.7) has
remained unrebutted in his cross-examination. His evidence stands
fortified from the evidence of Tajuddin Khan (P.W.4) and Raj
Bahadur Singh Yadav (P.W.3). Nothing could be elicited in their
cross-examination to disbelieve the truthfulness of their evidence.
Hence, so far as the factum of recovery of unlicensed one country
made pistol Article A-1 and live cartridge Article A-2 from accused
is concerned, the evidence of S.I. Mansharam Bagen (P.W.7) finds
full support from the evidence of aforesaid two witnesses. Thus, it is
apparent that aforesaid country made pistol and live cartridge was
seized from the possession of the applicant and he was not having
any license for possessing the same.
11. Pratap Soni (P.W.2) has deposed that he had examined seized
country made pistol and live cartridge. The country made pistol was
in working condition and it was worth firing.
12. Narendra Khare (P.W.6) has proved the sanction for
prosecution under Section 39 of the Act by the then District
Magistrate Shri Kedar Sharma. He has clearly deposed that Ex.P/6
sanction for prosecution bears signatures of the then District
Magistrate Shri Kedar Sharma. Thus, he has duly proved sanction
for prosecution.
13. On the basis of aforesaid evidence, the learned courts below
has rightly held that on 05.11.2014, applicant/accused in violation of
section 3 of Arms Act was illegally possessing Article A-1 country
made pistol and Article A-2 live cartridge. The findings recorded by
the courts below are as per the evidence on record and the recovery
of weapon and one live cartridge, as mentioned above, is found
proved from the possession of the present applicant. Hence, no fault
is visible in the findings recorded by the courts below. Thus, the
findings of applicant's conviction recorded by court below and
affirmed by appellate court for offence under Section 25(1-B)A, is
confirmed.
14. So far as the quantam of sentence is concerned, it is apparent
that the trial court has awarded one year RI and fine of Rs.500/-.
The minimum statutory prescribed sentence for offence under
section 25(1-B)A at the time of commission of offence was one year,
therefore, it is apparent that minimum prescribed mandatory
sentence has been awarded. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of State of M.P. Vs. Ayub Khan-(2012) 8 SCC 676 has held as under
"10. Legislature, in its wisdom, has fixed a
mandatory minimum sentence for certain
offences - keeping, possessing arms and
ammunition is a serious offence which shall
not be less than three years. Legislature, in
its wisdom, felt that there should be a
mandatory minimum sentence for such
offences having felt the increased need to
provide for more stringent punishment to
curb unauthorised access to arms and
ammunition, especially in a situation where
we are facing with menace of terrorism and
other anti national activities. A person who is
found to be in possession of country made
barrel gun with two round bullets and 50
grams explosive without licence, must in the
absence of proof to the contrary be presumed
to be carrying it with the intention of using it
when an opportunity arise which would be
detrimental to the people at large. Possibly,
taking into consideration all those aspects,
including the national interest and safety of
the fellow citizens, the Legislature in its
wisdom has prescribed a minimum
mandatory sentence. Once the accused was
found guilty for the offence committed under
Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, he has
necessarily to undergo the minimum
mandatory sentence, prescribed under the
Statute."
15. Thus, as the minimum sentence has been awarded by the
learned JMFC and the same has been affirmed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, the same is not required to be reduced for the period
already undergone by the applicant. Therefore, for the reasons stated
hereinabove, there is no need to interfere in the findings of
conviction and order of sentence recorded by the courts below.
16. In view of the above, this revision being devoid of merit, is
hereby dismissed.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
MKL
MANOJ KUMAR
LALWANI
2023.06.15 18:34:09
+05'30'
