Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamal vs State Of Haryana on 14 March, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038015
2024:PHHC:038015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
240
CRA-S-3192-2019
Date of decision: 14.03.2024
Kamal .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present : Mr. Anil Ghanghas, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
****
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.
1. The appellant is impugning the judgment of conviction
dated 05.08.2019 and order of sentence dated 07.08.2019 whereby he
was held guilty under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, in case FIR No.0013 dated
11.01.2018 under Sections 342, 379-A, 427 of the IPC and Section 25
of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Kundli (Sonepat).
2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 11.01.2018,
complainant, Naresh Kumar lodged a complaint with the police. He
asserted that he was working as a driver for Ola Company, operating a
car with registration No.HR-55AA-4987. On 10.01.2018, upon
reaching TDI Kundli from Dwarka, Delhi, he received a phone call on
his mobile phone regarding a car booking. At about 03:00 P.M., he
arrived at a designated pick up point where three young boys boarded
his car/cab. As the journey progressed towards Sonepat, these
passengers brandished a pistol, robbed him of Rs.5,000/- and his
mobile phone, after blind folding and gagging him with a handkerchief.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038015
2024:PHHC:038015
Subsequently, these three boys transferred the complainant to another
vehicle and kept driving him to various locations before abandoning
him at Burari Chowk, Delhi, warning him against reporting the
incident, under the threat of death. Before abandoning him, the
complainant was told about the location where his car had been parked.
Upon locating his car, he discovered it in a damaged condition and his
mobile phone had been left nearby. Following his complaint, an FIR
was lodged leading to the arrest of the accused. During investigation,
the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded leading to the
demarcation of the crime scene. A disclosure statement was also
recorded of appellant Kamal leading to the recovery of a country-made
pistol along with one live cartridge and one empty cartridge from
beneath a tree, adjoining the railway lines. The investigation culminated
in the submission of a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., leading
to the framing of charges under Sections 392 read with Section 397,
365 and 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 25 of the
Arms Act, 1959 against the accused. After the charges were framed
since the accused pleaded not guilty, they were sent up to face trial.
3. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as
10 witnesses including the investigating officer, Sub Inspector Inderjit,
who stepped into the witness box as PW1 and complainant Naresh
Kumar, who deposed as PW2. During trial, complainant PW2-Naresh
Kumar reiterated the allegations levelled in the FIR, however, he
categorically deposed that the accused were not those persons who had
participated in the occurrence in question or who had snatched his
money, car and mobile handset. Resultantly, complainant PW2-Naresh
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038015
2024:PHHC:038015
Kumar was declared hostile during trial. Based on the evidence, the
learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of the charges framed under
Sections 392/397/365/427 of the IPC, however, appellant Kamal was
convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 as recovery of a
country made pistol along with cartridges was effected pursuant to his
disclosure statement. The learned Trial Court while convicting the
appellant sentenced him to the period already undergone by him and
Rs.5,000/- as fine, along with a default clause.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted
that his conviction on the face of it was perverse and not based on any
cogent much less convincing evidence, moreso since complainant
PW2-Naresh Kumar had not even identified any of the accused during
trial. The only evidence which was purportedly gathered by the
investigating agency against the appellant was his disclosure statement
pursuant to which recovery of a country made pistol along with one live
cartridge and an empty cartridge was shown to the effected from an
open place, and which was admittedly frequented by people. Learned
counsel further asserted that such a disclosure statement had extremely
weak evidentiary value; no independent witness was joined at the time
of the alleged recovery even though it was from a public place, and still
further the alleged recovery was shown to have been effected more than
a month after the alleged crime, which clearly cast doubt on its
authenticity and created a serious dent in the case of the prosecution.
Learned counsel asserted that all these facts and circumstances were
erroneously not appreciated by the learned Trial Court and furthermore,
pertinently, other than the disclosure statement there existed no other
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038015
2024:PHHC:038015
evidence to link the appellant with the allegedly recovered weapon or
even the crime in question. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that
even as per the case of the prosecution the weapon of offence i.e. the
pistol had not even been used to inflict any injury upon the complainant
or even fired in the air. In addition, it was also asserted by the learned
counsel that the alleged recovery of the weapon of offence was also
highly suspect as there was no documented entry qua the same in the
records of the Police Station from whose jurisdiction it was recovered.
A prayer was, therefore, made by the learned counsel for setting aside
the impugned order.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer
and submissions made by the counsel opposite vehemently argued that
no doubt the complainant while stepping into the witness box during
trial, failed to identify any of the accused including the appellant as a
result of which he was declared hostile, however, the recovery of the
weapon of offence, which had been brandished by the accused, during
the occurrence in question was recovered only pursuant to the
disclosure statement made by the accused-appellant, hence, even if the
complainant had failed to identify the accused during trial, the learned
Trial Court had rightly the convicted the appellant under the Arms Act.
Learned State counsel thus prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material on record.
7. Admittedly, the key witness in the case in hand i.e.
complainant PW2-Naresh Kumar failed to identify any of the accused
including the appellant during trial, when he stepped into the witness
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038015
2024:PHHC:038015
box as PW2, as a result of which he was declared hostile during trial.
Notably, it was not even the case of the prosecution that the weapon
recovered, pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused, had been
used in the alleged crime. Even as per the complainant, a pistol was
merely brandished and not fired upon, when his mouth was gagged and
he was blindfolded by the accused.
8. In the instant case, a country-made pistol along with one
live cartridge and one empty cartridge was recovered, one month after
the occurrence in question from a public place (Railway tracks),
undoubtedly accessible to others. The prosecution miserably failed to
establish any link between the recovered country-made pistol etc. and
the crime in question, rendering the recoveries following the disclosure
statement of the appellant-accused of no consequence. It is crucial to
underscore that disclosure statements alone, without supporting
evidence, are insufficient to secure conviction of an accused.
9. As a sequel to the above, in the absence of any cogent
evidence and pertinently when the complainant admittedly failed to
identify any of the accused including the appellant during trial, the
learned Trial Court fell into error in convicting the appellant under
Section 25 of the Arms Act. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed
and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him.
14.03.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Vinay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
