Madhya Pradesh High Court
Inder Singh And Anr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 May, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1 CRA-962-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 27 th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 962 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
1. INDER SINGH S/O SHRI NATTHU SINGH JADON,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FINANCE
39, MARUTI NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
POLICE STATION HEERA NAGAR, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VIJAY S/O RAMESH MARATHA, AGED ABOUT 22
YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE 1566/10, NANDA
NAGAR, INDORE POLICE STATION -
PARDESHIPURA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI YOGESH KUMAR GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION HEERA NAGAR INDORE (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 appellants under Section 374 of
Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.07.2012 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Electricity Act), District
Indore in S.T.No.1006/2009. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court has
convicted the appellants/accused for the offence under Section 25(1-B) (A) of
2 CRA-962-2012
the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I. each with fine of Rs.1000/-
each with default stipulation.
2 . Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellants 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 Country made Pistol and Katta were
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.
3 . The trial Court framed charges against the appellants, which was
denied by the appellants. The trial Court after recording the evidence and
hearing the arguments found the appellants guilty for offence under the
aforesaid Section and convicted them 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. Investigating officer PW-29 seized country-made pistol from Inder
vide Ex.P-23 and from Vijay vide Ex.P-25 in presence of witnesses and
independent witnesses of the seizure memo have not supported the evidence of
investigating officer. They have turned hostile and stated that no property was
seized in presence of them from the appellant.
7. From perusal of the record, it is found that the Investigating Officer
stated in examination in chief that he seized the Country made Pistol and Katta
from the appellants, but he did not stated in the examination in chief that he
3 CRA-962-2012
sealed the Country made Pistol and Katta 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. In present case,
prosecution was unable to produce Malkhana register by which seized articles
were put in Malkhana in proper manner and independent witnesses have also
not supported the seizure from the appellants.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is found that prosecution is
unable to prove that seized Country made Pistol and Katta were seized from
the appellants. So in the considered opinion of this Court, trial Court has
committed error in holding the accused/appellants guilty for offence under
Section 25(1-B) (A) of the Arms Act.
1 1 . Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of
4 CRA-962-2012
conviction and sentence of the accused/appellants imposed by the trial Court is
set aside. Their 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
