DESAI, J. - (1.) THIS in an appeal from a judgment of the Sessions Judge of Agra convicting the appellant urder Section 20. Arms Act and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for two years.
(2.) THE appellant arrived at Agra Cantonment Railway Station by train on 26.6.1948 at about 3 P. M. Two Excise peons, Sughar Singh and Tilak Singh were on duty at the station checking suspicious luggage of passengers. Sughar Singh noticed the appellant with a band bag walking through the crowds. His suspicion was excited and be stopped him on the platform and asked him what the bag contained. It was a canvass bag and locked. The appellant stated at first that there was nothing in it and later that there was a pistol or something dangerous in it. Sughar Singh asked for the key which he refused to give at first. He was threatered and then he took out a ring containing two keys, one of which opened the lock. Inside the bag there was a pistol. The appellant could produce no licence. Sugbar Singh prepared a search list in the presence of Panchia coolie and Raja Ram bearer of the refreshments room and then took the appellant together with the bag and the pistol to the railway police station where at about 4 P. M. he made report about the matter.
(3.) THE appellant pleading not guilty denied that the bag or the pistol was in his possession. He admitted having arrived at Agra by train and having been arrested at the station. He stated that he arrived there from Gwalior, handed over the ticket and passed out through the gate when Sughar Singh called him and took him to the police station and that he (Sughar Singh) had a bag in his hand and made a report that the bag was in his (appellant's) possession. He denied that any key was recovered from his possession, or that he was arrested on the platform. He admitted that be held no license for a pistol. Sughar Singh, Panchia and Raja Ram are the witnesses for the prosecution ; they all support the prosecution case. The statement of Sughar Singh is corroborated by the first information report. The most important fact to notice about his evidence is that there was absolutely no reason for him to concoct a false case against the appellant. The appellant himself stated that he was not even known to him. No altercation of any kind had taken place and I am not prepared to believe that all of a sudden, for no reason whatsoever, Sughar Singh took it into his head to bring a false charge against the appellant. I do not know how he had a pistol ready to be planted on the appellant. There are some contradictions among the statements of the three witnesses but they are natural and do not necessarily indicate either that some of the witnesses were not present or that they were telling lies. If one witness stated that Sughar Singh had a fountain pen with which he prepared the search list and another stated that he obtained a pen from somewhere or if one stated that he prepared one list and another that he prepared two lists, or if one stated that the appellant said that there was a pistol in the bag and another that he said that there was something dangerous in it, it does not mean that the evidence of the witnesses should be disbelieved. Neither Panchia nor Raja Ram had any grievance against the appellant. The search list is missing so are the keys. It seems that a key was kept in the lock of the bag from where it slipped out and got lost, along with its companion. The prosecution produced before the Court a copy of the search list prepared from another copy of it. There are some mistakes in the preparation of the copy but that is immaterial. The keys are mentioned in the copy. It is in the evidence that the appellant started disclaiming his ownership of the bag but that was natural when he was caught with it in his possession. He knew that the bag would be opened and the pistol would be found inside. His denial does not necessarily support his case that the bag was planted upon him. When he said that the bag was not his, he did not mean that it had been planted upon him by Sughar Singh.;