GAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
State of Uttaranchal and others
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Accused-Revisionist Gajendra Singh was challaned by police station Kotwali Pithoragarh, in respect of offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act. After submission of chargesheet, charge was framed against him in respect of selfsame offence. Accused Gajendra Singh pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. He was put to trial.
(2.) Pw1 Constable Govind Singh and PW2 Constable Mahesh Chandra were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW1 said, among other things, that on 19.09.2001, when the accused was apprehended by the police in the house of Mahesh Chand Bhatt in Saraswati Vihar, a kripan (dagger) was found in his possession. Accused could not show the authority to keep the prohibited arm. Thus, he was found in possession of prohibited arm. PW2 Mahesh Chandra corroborated the testimony of PW1 Constable Govind Singh. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. No evidence was adduced in defence.
(3.) After considering the evidence on record, learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh found the accused Gajendra Singh guilty of offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act. When the accused-convict was heard on sentence, the accused said that he was not a previous convict. He remained in jail for three months during investigation and during the course of trial. Learned trial court, therefore, by mentioning the reasons, sentenced the accused for the period already undergone and also directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of which, he was required to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Although the minimum sentence under Section 25 of Arms Act was a year s imprisonment, but learned Magistrate reduced the same by assigning special reasons. During the course of hearing, accusedconvict said that it is usual for them to keep kripan (dagger).;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.