[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kuldeep @ Pinku vs State Of Haryana on 1 December, 2025

CRR-1438-2011              1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

01                                       CRR-1438-2011
                                         Reserved on: 14.11.2025
                                         Pronounced on : 01.12.2025

KULDEEP @ PINKU
                                                             ......PETITIONER

                                      Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
                                                             ...... RESPONDENT


CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present:       Mr. Varinder Singh Rana, Advocate/Amicus Curiae
               for the petitioner.

               Ms. Deepali Verma, Asstt. A.G. Haryana.

                           *****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. Challenge in this Revision Petition is to the judgment dated

18.05.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Sonipat, hereinafter

being referred to as 'Appellate Court' only. By virtue of above-mentioned

judgment, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the

judgment of conviction dated 01.12.2010 and order of sentence dated

02.12.2010, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sonipat, hereinafter

being referred to as 'trial Court'.

2. By virtue of above-mentioned judgment, the petitioner, who was

facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section-25 of

Arms Act has been held guilty for the commission of above-mentioned

offence, and the learned trial Court awarded following sentence to the

petitioner:-

1 of 7

Offence(s) under Imprisonment Fine In default of payment Section of fine 25 of Arms Act RI for 01 year Rs.200/- SI for 15 days

3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned

judgments, passed by the learned trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court

are outcome of conjectures and surmises and therefore, both of them deserve to

be set aside.

4. The pith and substance of the story put up before the learned trial

Court is that the FIR No.81 dated 24.06.2004 was lodged in Police Station Rai,

District Sonipat. The above-mentioned FIR was lodged on the report of ASI

Rajiv Kumar, who had reported that on 26.04.2004 when he was leading a

team of police officials for usual law and order duty, he spotted a boy coming

from village Sevli side, who sensed the presence of police party on his way

ahead got panicked and suddenly turned back with a motive to sneak away. It

was further reported by the above-named police officer that on enquiry, the

above-mentioned person was apprehended, who disclosed his name as Kuldeep

@ Pinku and when the search of his person was conducted, it was found that

he was carrying a pistol, kept below the belt of his trouser.

5. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of above-mentioned

recovery of weapon, without permit or licence, the requisite formalities with

regard to seizure and sealing of recovered weapon, filing of FIR and arrest of

accused were performed and further investigation taken up. Pursuant to above-

mentioned investigation when Final Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was

filed, it led to conviction of the petitioner.

6. Heard.

2 of 7

7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

judgment passed by both the Courts below are outcome of non-application of

judicial mind and that without looking into the fact that the prosecution had

miserably failed to discharge its burden with regard to proving of charge, the

learned trial Court vis-a-vis Appellate Court believed the unreliable evidence

of the prosecution and returned the finding of conviction of the petitioner.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner not only the settled principles

of law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond the shadow of

doubt, have been ignored by the learned trial Court, vis-a-vis by the learned

Appellate Court, but also the fact that requisite formalities were not performed

in accordance with law. According to learned counsel for the petitioner neither

the sanction for the prosecution of petitioner was properly proved nor the

recovery of the same from the possession of the petitioner. It has also been

contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the link evidence was also

missing but on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, the petitioner has

been convicted.

8. Per contra, the learned State counsel has contended that there is

concurrent findings of two Courts with regard to proving of charge against the

petitioner. As per learned State counsel, the evidence adduced by the

prosecution is not only thoroughly consistent but also sufficient to inspire

confidence, and that is why both the Courts below have believed the same.

According to learned State counsel the scope of interference in the Revision

Petition is very limited and that in the present case such scope is not available.

As per learned State counsel the present petition is devoid of merits. The

learned State counsel has urged for dismissal of present petition.

3 of 7

9. The record has been perused carefully.

10. A perusal of record shows that in the present case four witnesses

were examined by the prosecution. Amongst them PW-1 Reader of District

Magistrate, Sonipat had proved the sanction order, for the prosecution of

petitioner under Arms Act. But according to PW-1 the weapon was not

produced before him.

11. With regard to above-mentioned sanction order, it is relevant to

mention here that in the sanction order Ex.PA it was not mentioned that the

weapon was ever produced before him for examination. Thus, it is apparent on

record that the sanction order Ex.PA was passed by the District Magistrate in a

routine manner without examination of weapon for which the petitioner had

been prosecuted. The above-mentioned lapse on the part of sanctioning

authority makes it abundantly clear that the sanction order had been passed in a

routine manner i.e. without application of mind, and thus, the above-mentioned

sanction order was no sanction order in the eyes of law.

12. In the present case the another significant fact to be taken into

consideration is the failure of Investigating Officer to join independent persons

at the time of recovery of country-made pistol from the possession of

petitioner. With regard to above two witnesses were examined by the

prosecution. The PW-2 Sub Inspector 'Rajiv Kumar', the Investigating Officer

of the case had deposed that the recovery of weapon was effected at a place

where number of public witnesses were present but none of them was joined in

the investigation. The same fact was deposed by PW-4 ASI Suresh Kumar. The

another significant fact to be taken into consideration is that even the testimony

of official witnesses was contradictory with regard to the place of recovery of

4 of 7

country-made pistol. As per PW-2 it was being carried by the petitioner on his

left side but as per PW-4 on right side.

13. The another significant fact to be taken into consideration is that

at the time of examination of Investigating Officer, the weapon was not

produced before the Court. This was a serious lapse on the part of prosecution.

14. It is also relevant to mention here that the link evidence in this

case was missing. It was not deposed by PW-5 that from the storeroom of

Police Station, he had collected the weapon and produced it before the arms

expert for testimony. But the PW-5 deposed that the weapon was produced

before him by PW-2. This was a major contradiction in the story set-out by the

prosecution.

15. One more lapse on the part of prosecution was that as per PW-5

when the weapon was produced before him, it was not in sealed condition and

moreover, as per PW-5 he had not test-fired the pistol in question. In the

present case two witnesses of recovery were examined by the prosecution i.e.

PW-2 and PW-4 and their testimonies were contradictory qua the timing when

police party returned to the police station. Such as, as per PW-2 they returned

to the police station at 11:00 P.M. but as per PW-4 at about 10-10:15 P.M.

16. With regard to above-mentioned factual matrix of the case, the

observations made by this Court in the case of Bhuptej Pal Singh Vs. State of

Punjab 2014(1) RCR(Criminal) 24 are relevant. It has been observed in the

above-mentioned case that if the revolver was not sealed on the spot, the

accused was entitled for the benefit of doubt.

17. Similarly in the case of Gurcharan Singh @ Charana Vs. State

of Punjab CRR 535 of 2007 this Court observed that if the weapon was not

5 of 7

test fired and proven to be in working condition, the charge under Section 25

of Arms Act could not have been established.

18. If the factual matrix of the present case is analysed in the light of

above-mentioned principles of law it transpires that;-

i) that the weapon of offence was never test fired. Thus, the

report of Arms Act Expert (PW-5) could not have been

believed with regard to the fact that the weapon was in

working condition;

ii) that the sanction order was defective as the weapon was

never produced before the sanctioning authority;

iii) that the link evidence was missing as the storekeeper in

whose custody the weapon was kept had not been

examined;

iv) that the weapon was not produced in sealed condition

before the arms expert, which shows that it was not sealed

on the spot. Thus, the tampering of case property in this

case cannot be ruled out;