FAROOQ HASAN,J. - (1.) AT the joint request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal has been heard finally at this stage, keeping in view the fact of shorter sentence under challenge.
(2.) SHRI Biri Singh learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been convicted Under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to one year's R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/ - (in default, further 2 months' S.I.), merely on the basis of recovery of the gun from his possession, whereas, according to Shri Singh, it was the case of prosecution that at the relevant time, the gun in question was in possession of Bhagawat Prasad and the same was snatched by the appellant. Admittedly the appellant was tries for the charges Under Section 397, IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act. But, on account of the incongruities found in the identification parade, the appellant has been acquitted Under Section 397, but he has been held guilty Under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.
(3.) SHRI biri Singh vociforcely contended that while the snatching of the gun in question has been held to be doubtful then the appellant could not have been convicted Under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. In this regard, he submitted that the recovery witnesses (PWS 9 and 10) before whom the gun in question has been recovered did not at all support the prosecution case and they have turned hostile. That apart, according to him, the trial Court, itself, has admitted in its judgment that number of the gun stated in the license and the number engraved on the gun in question both were different. Taking the aid of these circumstances, Shri Biri Singh urged that it cannot be said that the gun which was possessed by Bhagwat Prasad at the crucial time was the same, which was recovered from the possession of the appellant.;