Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 16296 P&H

CRR-420-2016(O&M)                                           #1#

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH.


                                                        CRR-420-2016(O&M)

                                                 Date of Decision:-09.12.2022

Darshan Singh.

                                                                    ......Petitioner.

                                    Versus

State of Punjab.

                                                                  ......Respondent.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:-   Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate for the Petitioner.

            Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

                                 ***

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order

dated 05.11.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide which the

appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence both dated 30.10.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate,

1st Class, Malerkotla has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution are that on 14.09.2012 HC

Jagtar Singh, along with the other police officials was on patrol duty and

they were going to village Khurd, Kothala. When they reached near

telephone exchange Shergarh Cheema at about 04:00 pm then a person with

cut hair was seeing coming from the side of village Cheema and he

suddenly turned towards the common land situated at the left side of the

telephone exchange. The accused was apprehended who disclosed his name

1 of 6

CRR-420-2016(O&M) #2#

as Darshan Singh son of Gajjan Singh and from his search a Pistol of 22

bore was recovered from the right pocket of his pant and a live cartridge

was recovered from the chamber of the 12 bore pistol. On measurement the

barrel of the pistol was 6-1/2 inches and the body of the pistol was 2 inches.

The handle of the same was 3-1/2 inches. Two more live cartridges of a 12

bore pistol was recovered from the left pocket of the accused. The recovered

pistol was taken into possession by preparing a recovery memo. Three live

cartridges recovered from the accused were taken into custody by preparing

a separate recovery memo which was sealed bearing impression JS and the

seal was handed over to Kulwinder Singh. The Ruqa was sent through PHG

Jaspal Singh. Site plan was prepared. The accused was arrested. After

completion of the necessary formalities of investigation and after taking the

prior permission of the Distt. Magistrate the final report under Section 173

Cr.P.C. was presented in the court.

3. The accused was charged sheeted for the offence punishable

under section Sections 25 of the Arms Act, to which he pleaded not guilty

and claimed trial.

4. ln order to establish its case, the prosecution examined PWI

Vinod Kumar, PW2 HC Jagtar Singh, PW3 HC Kulwinder Singh, PW4 HC

Malkit Singh and PW5 C Anil Kumar. Thereafter the prosecution evidence

was closed by order.

5. The Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313

Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the incriminating evidence against him and

pleaded innocence. However, no evidence was led in his defence.

6. Based on the evidence lead the petitioner/accused came to be

convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo

2 of 6

CRR-420-2016(O&M) #3#

rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.1000/- and in

default of payment of fine he was further liable to undergo rigourous

imprisonment for one week.

7. The petitioner/accused preferred an appeal before the Court of

Sessions Judge, Sangrur and the said appeal came to be dismissed vide

judgment dated 05.11.2015.

The aforementioned two judgments are under challenge in the

present revision petition.

8. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the prosecution

witnesses are discrepant on material particulars. Only official witnesses

were examined and there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery.

The prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and

thus the judgment of the Trial Court and lower Appellate Court were liable

to be set aside and the petitioner ought to be acquitted of the charges framed

against him.

9. The Counsel for the State on the other hand contends that the

grounds canvassed herein have been dealt with comprehensively by the

Courts below. Nothing new has been argued by the learned Counsel for the

petitioner. He thus contends that there is no merit in the present petition

and same ought to be dismissed.

10. I have heard Counsel for the parties.

11. In the present case, the prosecution to prove his case has

examined H.C. Jagtar Singh, the investigating officer who testified that on

14.09.2012 he along with HC Kulwinder Singh apprehended the petitioner

on suspicion and a 12 bore pistol along with three live cartridges were

recovered from his possession. They were taken into possession vide memo

3 of 6

CRR-420-2016(O&M) #4#

Ex.P-3. The map of the pistol was prepared as Ex.P-2. PW-2 also proved

on record the ruqa Ex.P-4 and formal FIR Ex.P-5. The FSL report was

Ex.P-9. The aforementioned version of HC Jagtar Singh has been endorsed

by PW-3 HC Kulwinder Singh. PW-2 & PW-3 were cross examined at

length but their testimonies could not be shaken. Further PW-1 Vinod

Kumar proved on record the sanction granted by the Additional District

Magistrate. Further, the FSL report Ex.P-9 clearly reveals that the weapon

recovered is in working condition. Merely because no independent witness

was examined by the prosecution cannot lead to the exoneration of the

petitioner when the testimonies of the official witnesses has been found to

be reliable.

13. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the present

petition and the same is therefore dismissed.

14. With respect to the imposition of sentence this Court in Major

Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2013(1) RCR (Criminal) 141 has held as

under:-

"12. Be that as it may, however, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner-convict is a poor person, he has already undergone the period of his substantive sentence of more than eight months out of the total sentence of one year and he is not a previous convict, so, there is a large scope of reduction in the period of sentence, has considerable force. This factual position is acknowledged by the learned State counsel.

13. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for parties, to my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be subserved if the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner- convict by the Courts below is reduced to already undergone by him, inter-alia, on the following grounds:-

i) The recovery in this case is of 1.4.1997 and he has already faced the pangs and suffered the agony of protracted trial, appeal & revision for the last more than 15½ years.

                                         4 of 6

 CRR-420-2016(O&M)                                            #5#

           ii)    As per the custody certificate, the petitioner-convict has

already undergone the period of substantive sentence of more than eight months out of the total sentence of one year.

iii) He is on bail.

           iv)    He is a poor person.
            v)    He is a first offender and is not a previous convict.
           vi)    He is the only bread winner of his family.

14. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the revision petition filed by the petitioner-convict is hereby dismissed and the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence of fine imposed on the petitioner-convict are maintained. However, taking into consideration the totality of the facts & circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year imposed by the trial Court is reduced to eight months, already undergone by him. Accordingly, the impugned order of sentence is modified to the extent and in the manner depicted here-in-before.

This Court in Gurvinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2018(3)

Law Herald 2636 has held as under:-

"12. However, as regards plea of the petitioner that he is a first time offender; no other case is pending against him; has been suffering the agony of criminal proceedings since 21.09.2002, the date when the FIR in question was registered against him, and as against the awarded sentence of 1 year by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned appellate Court, he has already undergone 3 months and 10 days, this Court finds that prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner for reduction of sentence of the petitioner to the period already undergone by him, carries weight.

13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harjit Singh Versus State of Haryana, (2002) 10 SCC 695 had reduced the sentence of 7 years under Section 25 of the Act to the period already undergone (more than 5 years) by the accused. Similarly, in the case of Kirpal Singh Versus State of Punjab 2009(1) AICLR 243, this Court, taking into consideration the fact that petitioner has three children; there is no one to look after his family and has already undergone sentence of more than 5 months out of total sentence of one year, had reduced

5 of 6

CRR-420-2016(O&M) #6#

the sentence of petitioner to the period already undergone by him. Moreover, in the cases of Shiv Kailash Versus The State of Punjab 2016(5) RCR (Criminal) 438; Jagdeep Singh @ Neetu Versus State of Punjab, 2013(2) Law Herald 1849 and Sukhdev Singh Versus State of Punjab 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 694, similar view has been adopted by this Court.

14. Therefore, taking into consideration the pleas of petitioner and also the judgments referred hereinabove, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act is reduced to the period already undergone by him subject to payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.500/- as imposed by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned appellate Court."

15. Keeping in view the aforementioned judgments, it is quite

apparent that the petitioner is a poor person and a first time offender. The

occurrence pertains to the year 2012 and as many as 10 years have elapsed.

In the last 10 years the petitioner has maintained good conduct.

16. In view of the above, the substantive sentence of the petitioner

is reduced to the period of custody already undergone by him i.e. 07 months

and 11 days.

Disposed of.

                                             ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
                                                   JUDGE
December 09, 2022
Vinay
        Whether speaking/reasoned                      Yes/No
        Whether reportable                             Yes/No




                                        6 of 6