Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pappu @ Laxmi vs The State Of M.P. on 23 June, 2023
Author: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 23 rd OF JUNE, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 415 of 1999
BETWEEN:-
PAPPU @ LAXMI, S/O NATHURAM VISHWAKARMA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O FOUJDAR MHALLA,
RAJNAGAR, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI AKASH VISHWAKARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. RAJNAGAR,
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI VINOD TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER)
Reserved on : 12.06.2023
Pronounced on : 23.06.2023
.......................................................................................................
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has
been preferred by the appellant against impugned judgment dated 29.01.1999
passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial
No.213/1995 under which the appellant has been convicted for offence under
Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years.
Signature Not Verified
2. Prosecution case as stated before the trial Court was that on
Signed by: NITESH PANDEY
Signing time: 6/23/2023
2:27:56 PM
11.01.1995, one Raju was going to his house along with his father Lachchu,
Natthu and Parasdwa. At around 8 p.m. two persons robbed him of Rs.
32,000/- and when Raju as well as his companions tried to get hold of robbers,
they shot fire. Resultantly, Raju suffered pallets' wound on his face and
robbers fled away. On the matter being reported to the police crime was
registered and investigated. The present appellant and one Devnath were
arrested and identification proceedings were conducted. A country-made
firearm as well as a blank cartridge were seized from the possession of the
appellant along with cash amount. After conducting the trial, Devnath and
appellant-Pappu @ Laxmi Prasad were acquitted of the charges of offences
punishable under Section 394/397 of IPC, however, the appellant-Pappu @
Laxmi Prasad was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 25(1)
(a) of Arms Act and sentenced as aforesaid.
3. Grounds raised in the present appeal are that the trial Judge
committed grave mistake because the evidence could not connect the appellant
with the alleged crime. The witnesses did not properly see the culprits. Their
testimony had many contradictions. Further the seizure proceeding was not at
all supported by the witnesses. Compliance of provision of Section 39 of Arms
Act was also not ensured. Therefore, it is requested that conviction and
sentence as passed against the appellant may be set-aside and appellant be
acquitted in the matter.
4. The charge-sheet of this case was filed against the two persons
including the appellant in relation to the offences of Sections 394, 398 and 307
of IPC as well as Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. The present appellant was
charged under Section 394/397 of IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NITESH PANDEY
Signing time: 6/23/2023
2:27:56 PM
prosecution examined total 17 witnesses in the case out of which Radhacharan
(PW-1), Param Lal (PW-2), Nasratullah Kha (PW-3), Pyarelal (PW-4), Ganesha
(PW-5), Shobharam (PW-7), Majeed Kha (PW-10), Parasdwa (PW-14) and
Raju (PW-15) were declared hostile. None of the witnesses present on the
scene could identify the persons that had committed the robbery. Resultantly,
the acquittal under Section 394/397 of IPC was passed.
5. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 25(1)(a)
of Arms Act for the reason that upon his search, the appellant was found to be
in possession of a country-made firearm and an empty cartridge. The seizure
memo prepared in this regard is Exhibit-P/6 and the Police Officer conducting
this proceeding was Shri S.P.Shukla, ASI (PW-17).
6. Both the witnesses to the seizure namely Paramlal (PW-2) and
Nasratullah Kha (PW-3) were declared hostile.
7. To sustain the conviction under Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act only
the testimony of ASI-S.P.Shukla (PW-17), Arms Clerk-Ramesh Kumar (PW-
11), Arms Mohrir-Chhannulal Tiwari (PW-13) and documents of seizure memo
(Exhibit-P/6), inquiry report (Exhibit-P/18) and sanction for prosecution
(Exhibit-P/17) are available on record.
8. ASI-S.P.Shukla (PW-17) has claimed that he seized a country-made
fire arm along with an empty cartridge from the custody of appellant but none
of these items have been produced before the trial Court during evidence.
Chhunnulal Tiwari (PW-13) has submitted his examination report in which he
has claimed that the empty cartridge was fired from the seized firearm, but
during his cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not verify whether the
firearm was in working condition or not. The examination report also does not
disclose the grounds on which he claims that the empty cartridge was fired from
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NITESH PANDEY
Signing time: 6/23/2023
2:27:56 PM
that firearm. Further, regarding prosecution sanction of (Exhibit-P17), Arms
Clerk-Ramesh Kumar (PW-11) has admitted that the fire arm was not
produced alongwith case diary for seeking sanction.
9. In Chunta Vs. State of M.P., 1999 Cr.L.R. (MP) 80 , this High
Court has considered the evidentiary value of a fact related to non-production
of firearm seized in the matter and has held that if the firearm is not produced in
the Court as an evidence the charge of Arms Act fails.
10. So far as the question of grant of sanction is concerned, it is
necessary to prove that it was not given formally. In the decision of Sukhlal
Banshi Lodhi and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1998 (1) MPLJ
288, it was held that to show that the sanction was properly granted by the
concerned authority, after due application of mind. For this the firearm should
be shown to have been taken to that authority and it should also be proved that
after looking to the relevant papers, examining the weapon and applying the
mind, the sanction was granted. Statements of Arms Clerk-Ramesh Kumar
(PW-11) do not reflect that the firearm was ever taken to the concerned
authority and only after examining it, the authority applied its mind to grant
sanction.
11. Looking to the facts that the concerned firearm and the empty
cartridge were not produced in evidence; that the examination report of Arms
Mohrir-Chhannulal Tiwari (PW-13) creates doubts about its sanctity and that
the sanction for prosecution was granted without seeing the firearm; and
resultantly there was failure of application of mind for grant of sanction; this
Court comes to the conclusion that the conviction under Section 25(1-B)(a) of
Arms Act is not sustainable.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NITESH PANDEY
Signing time: 6/23/2023
2:27:56 PM
1 2 . Accordingly, the impugned judgment regarding conviction and
sentence passed under Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act is set-aside and present
appellant who is in custody is directed to be released forthwith.
13. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.
Office is directed to send the copy of this judgement alongwith the
record to the trial Court concerned for information and compliance.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Nitesh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NITESH PANDEY
Signing time: 6/23/2023
2:27:56 PM
