Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sushil vs State Of Haryana on 7 March, 2024
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042294
2024:PHHC:042294
CRR-1956-2008 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
242 CRR-1956-2008 (O&M)
Date of decision : 07.03.2024
Sushil ...... Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana ...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present :- Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Sehrawat, DAG Haryana.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)
CRM-43714-2008
Allowed as prayed for.
CRR-1956-2008
1. This revision has been filed against the judgment dated
01.09.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Jind and judgment dated
16.11.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jind convicting the
petitioner for offences punishable under Section 25 (1-B)(a) of Arms Act,
1959 and sentenced him to undergo as under:-
Section Rigorous Imprisonment Fine (in Rs.) In default of
(Arms payment of fine
Act) (rigorous
imprisonment)
25 1 year 1,000/- 1 month
2. The petitioner was booked in the FIR No.487 dated
21.11.2001 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police
Station City Jind. As per the same on 21.11.2004, when the police party
was patrolling, they found movement of a person to be suspicious.
Therefore, petitioner was apprehended and on his personal search
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042294
2024:PHHC:042294
one .315 bore pistol loaded with live cartridges was recovered from the
right dab of the trouser. After completion of necessary investigation,
police challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented.
3. Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, came to
the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt and thus, convicted him for offences punishable under Section 25
(1-B) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959.
4. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate
Court. The Appellate Court found that the judgment and order of sentence
passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity and
consequently, dismissed the appeal.
5. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the prosecution story
is based only on evidence of official witnesses and no independent/private
witness joined despite the fact that the alleged place of arrest of appellant
was a public place. He further submits that the Appellate Court has
overlooked the fact that there was an unexplained delay of 5 days in
testing the pistol and cartridge for the purpose of finding out as to whether
the pistol recovered from him was actually a weapon or not. Therefore,
there are many discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence. He
further submits that there was no motive or intention of the petitioner to
have pistol and cartridge without licence or with licence. He is a first time
offender and sole bread earner of his family. He submits that apart from
this case, there is no other case pending against the petitioner. Thus, he
argues that the Court may draw an adverse inference and extend benefit of
doubt to the petitioner.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042294
2024:PHHC:042294
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through
the records of the case.
7. After going through records of the case, this Court finds that
neither any independent witness was examined nor an attempt was made
to join any person. Court also cannot turn blind eye to the fact that
petitioner was apprehended from a public place i.e. bus stand which is not
only crowded by general public but also must be having office of state
transport from where responsible Public officer could have been asked to
join as an independent witness.
8. Section 25 of the Arms Act which provides for punishment
of offences committed under this Act mandates that an offence shall be
punishable with not less than 2 years of punishment which may extend to
5 years. But the proviso clothes the Court with power to impose a
sentence of less than 2 years for any adequate and special reasons to be
recorded.
9. In the present case, the petitioner was a young boy at the time
of offence. He is the sole bread earner of his family. He suffered ordeal of
prolonged prosecution for more than 20 years. Therefore, I deem it
appropriate to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to that he has already
undergone while holding his conviction.
10. Ordered accordingly.
11. Revision petition stands disposed off.
(PANKAJ JAIN)
JUDGE
07.03.2024
spn Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable : No
3 of 3
