- (1.)The present criminal revision petition is filed under Sec. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') read with Sec. 401 of the Code to impugn the judgment dtd. 13/9/2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned judgment') passed in Criminal Appeal bearing no 24/2017 (56/2017) titled as Maya Devi and Another V The State GNCT of Delhi arising out of FIR bearing no 0242/2004 dtd. 29/7/2004 passed by the court of Sh. S.K. Malhotra, ASJ/FTC/e-Court, Shahdara, Karkardooma, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellate court').
(2.)In backdrop of case briefly narrating the facts of the case are that PW4 ASI Rajbir Singh along with HC Devender, PW2 Ct. Shiv Dutt and Ct. Arun Kumar on 28/7/2004 were on patrolling duty at 100 futa road near Shiv Mandir and at about 9.15 pm received a secret information that one person, namely, Nempal has kept illegal arms and ammunition at his house bearing no E-151, Rajiv Gali, East Babarpur and the said Nempal can be apprehended if the raid is conducted. Accordingly, PW4 ASI Rajbir Singh constituted a raiding party and requested 6-7 passersby to join the investigation but none agreed and left the spot without disclosing their details. Thereafter, PW4 ASI Rajbir Singh along with raiding party went to Yaad Ram Gali and requested 4-5 passersby to join the investigation and PW3 Surender Kumar Parashar has agreed to join investigation. The raiding party reached at Rajiv Gali where they again asked 4-5 passersby to join investigation but the public persons namely, Ramphere, Jaibir Singh Pal and others did not agree to join the raiding party. The raiding party led by PW4 ASI Rajbir Singh knocked the door of the house at about 10.00 pm which was opened by Maya Devi (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') and in the meantime, one person whose name was later on disclosed as Nempal and was husband of the petitioner ran away from the house. The independent witness PW3 Surender Kumar Parashar was asked to take personal search of the police officials and the house was accordingly, searched by the raiding party. The raiding party during the search of the house had seen one iron box which was lying in open space i.e. angan (courtyard). The raiding party took the keys of the box from the petitioner and opened said box wherein one printed quilt (rajai) was found. One polythene bag was found under the quilt which was found to be containing desi katta Ex. P1, one country made pistol Ex. P2, 7 empty cartridges of .315 bore Ex. P4, one brown belt containing 16 live cartridges Ex. P5 and4 boxes of cartridges each containing 10 cartridges Ex. P6 were found. PW4 ASI Rajbir Singh passed on the information to the senior officers.SHO, PS Welcome, at about 10.40 pm also came at the spot and interrogated the petitioner who on interrogation disclosed that recovered arms and ammunition belong to her husband namely Nempal. The ACP, PS Shahdara at about 10.55 pm also came at the spot and made enquiries from the petitioner. The photographs of the spot were taken. PW4 ASI Rajbir Singh prepared the sketches of desi katta and revolver which are Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B. The recovered arms and ammunition were seized vide seizure memo (Ex/PW2/C) after converting into pullandas which were sealed with the seal of 'RBS'. CFSL form was filled and the seal after use was handed over to PW2 Ct. Shiv Dutt. PW4 ASI Rajbir Singh prepared rukka (Ex. P4/A) which was sent to the police station for registration of case through PW2 Ct. Shiv Dutt. FIR bearing no 242/14 (Ex.PW1/B) was got registered. PW9 SI Arvind Sagar conducted the further investigation and during further investigation arrested the petitioner vide arrest and personal search memos Ex. PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E, prepared site plan and recorded the statement of public witness i.e. PW3 Surender Kumar Parashar. PW9 SI Arvind Sagar along with PW2 Ct. Shiv Dutt on 29/7/2004 arrested accused Nempal vide arrest and personal search memos Ex. PW2/F and Ex. PW2/G and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW2/H. The accused Dutta Ram was also arrested on the basis of disclosure statement made by accused Nempal. The case property was sent to FSL for forensic analysis. The charge sheet was filed after conclusion of investigation.
2. 1 The court of Sh. Ankur Jain, Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi vide order dtd. 29/1/2010 framed charges for the offences punishable under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 against the petitioner and accused Nempal, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused Dutta Ram was ordered to be discharged as there was no incriminating evidence against him except the disclosure statement of the accused Nempal.

2. 2 The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses including ASI Rajbir Singh as PW4 and Ct. Shiv Dutt as PW2 who were the members of the raiding party, Investigating Officer SI Arvind Sagar and DCP Jaspal Singh as PW11who granted the sanction under Sec. 39 of the Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution evidence also examined other police officials who participated in the investigation. The prosecution evidence was ordered to be closed vide order dtd. 5/11/2015. The statement of the petitioner and accused Nempal were recorded under Sec. 313 of the Code vide proceedings dtd. 20/11/2016 wherein they pleaded false implication and their innocence by stating that the alleged recovery is planted on them but preferred not opt to lead defence evidence.

(3.)The court of Sh. Pranjal Aneja, Metropolitan Magistrate-01, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') vide judgment dtd. 8/10/2016 convicted the petitioner and Nempal for the offence punishable under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and vide order on sentence dtd. 18/3/2017sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000.00 each in default of fine to additionally undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The relevant portion of the judgment dtd. 8/10/2016 is reproduced verbatim as under:-
8. From the above appreciation of evidence it is seen that the prosecution has been able to establish its case. It has been duly proved on record that the illegal arms and cartridges have been recovered from the house of the accused and accused no. I Maya Devi was present at that time in her house. The co accused i.e her husband namely Nempal, who absconded at the time of raid, was arrested later on. There is no dispute that the arms and cartridges are illegal and accused persons posses no license for the same. The recovery has been duly proved. In examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C the accused persons simply stated that the recovery is planted. Accused persons did not opt to lead DE. Thus the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of both accused Maya Devi and, Nempal beyond reasonable doubt.

9. Both accused persons Maya Devi and Nempal are accordingly convicted under Sec. 25 Arms Act, 1959.

The relevant portion of the order on quantum of sentence dtd. 18/3/2017 dated is reproduced below:-

In the present case, the accused persons have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 25 of the Arms Act for unlawfully possessing arms &ammunitions without licence i.e. in violation of Sec. 3 of the Arms Act, 1959. The punishment provided for the offence u/s 25(1-B) is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and shall be also be liable to fine. There can be no denial to the fact that both the convicts are aged and one of them is a lady. It is further seen that the case is of year 2004 and the trial continued for considerable long period of about 12 years,

Hence, in the overall conspectus of the case and considering the aforesaid circumstances, both convicts are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the minimum period prescribed i.e one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000.00 (Two thousand) each. In default of payment of fine, convict to additionally undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days.

Benefit of Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C. is given to the convicts for the period already undergone by them which shall be set off from the term of imprisonment as imposed.