Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhajansingh And 3 Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 May, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 10 th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7 of 2013
BETWEEN:-
1. BHAJANSINGH S/O SAJANSINGH, AGED ABOUT
40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILL.AMBADA
TEHSIL AND P.S. KUKSHI DISTRICT DHAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SAJANSINGH S/O BHAGWAN BHILALA, AGED
ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILL
AMBADA TEH. KUKSHI DISTRICT DHAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)(ABATED VIDE ORDER
DATED 17.02.2020)
3. NARESH S/O SAJANSINGH, AGED ABOUT 32
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILL AMBADA
TEH. & P.S. KUKSHI DISTRICT DHAR(MADHYA
PRADESH)(ABATED VIDE ORDER DATED
17.02.2020)
4. PUNAMSINGH S/O SAJANSINGH , AGED ABOUT 44
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILL AMBADA
TEH. & P.S. KUKSHI DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(NONE FOR THE APPELLANT )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRU.P.S.KUKSHI
DISTT.DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
( BY SHRI MAYANK MISHRA - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of Cr.P.C.
being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.12.2012 passed by the learned II
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Kukshi, District Dhar in
S.T.No.229/2012. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court has convicted the
appellant no.1-Bhjansingh for offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced
to six months R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and also under Section 25(1)(b) of the
Arms Act and sentenced to 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation.
2 . Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant filed this
appeal on the ground that the trial Court failed to see that there is no evidence
on record to prove that accused was guilty. There are material contradictions
and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. The Investigating
Officer was unable to prove that seized Falia was sealed on his part and put in
proper way in Malkhana. The independent witness turned hostile and did not
support the prosecution case. On these grounds, prays for setting aside the
impugned judgment and acquittal of the appellant no.1-Bhajansingh.
3 . The trial Court framed charges against the appellant, which was
denied by the appellant. The trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing
the arguments found the appellant no.1-Bhajansingh guilty for offence under the
aforesaid Sections and convicted him as aforesaid.
4. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and
prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Now question arises whether the appeal of the appellants is
admissible or not?
6. So far as conviction for offence under Section 324 of the IPC is
concerned, I have gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution and
examined it minutely. From perusal of overall evidence on record, it is clearly
established that learned trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the
appellant no.1 under Section 324 of the IPC. Hence, findings recorded by the
trial Court with respect to conviction are affirmed.
7. So far as sentence is concerned, appellant no.1 remained in custody
from 03.05.2012 to 04.05.2012. Accused was 40 years of age at the time of
incident and now he is near about 52 years old. Hence, while modifying the
sentence of imprisonment, appellant no.1 is sentenced to the period already
undergone by him with fine as imposed by the trial Court. The appellant no.1 is
on bail. His bail bonds stands discharged accordingly.
8 . So far as offence under Section 25(1)(b) of Arms Act is concerned
from perusal of the record, it is found that the Investigating Officer stated in
examination in chief that he seized the Falia from the appellant no.1, but he
did not stated in the examination in chief that he sealed the Falia on the spot. It
is true that evidence of the police officer cannot be discarded on the basis that
independent witness has not supported him. It also true that evidence of police
officer must be examined as independent witness and if it is found that he was
doing investigation without any malicious intention then his evidence cannot be
discarded on the basis that he was a police witness. Prosecution was unable to
produce Malkhana register by which seized article was put in Malkhana in
proper manner.
9. In the case of Varghese Vs. State of Kerala 1998 (1) MPWN
S.N. 209 SC and Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1998
SC 1660 it was held that weapon was sealed on the spot and there is no
evidence produced by the prosecution that after seizing the weapon it was kept
in Malkhana of Police Station properly and not produced Malkhana register,
then seizure of the weapon is doubtful.
10. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Gurmail Singh reported
in AIR 2005 SC 1578 the Apex Court held that if it was not proved by
evidence that seized weapon was kept in Malkhana in sealed situation, then
prosecution case may be doubtful.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is found that prosecution is
unable to prove that Falia was seized from the appellant no.1. So in the
considered opinion of this Court, trial Court has committed error in holding the
accused/appellant no.1 guilty for offence under Section 25(1) (b) of the Arms
Act.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment
of conviction and sentence of the accused/appellant no.1-Bhajansingh imposed
by the trial Court for offence under Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act is set
aside and appellant no.1 is acquitted of the charge. His bail bonds shall stand
discharged. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
information.
C.C. as per rules.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
RJ
