AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vide this order above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of.
FIR No.101 dated 12.05.2014 was registered under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Fatehpur Kotwali, District Sikar against six
persons, namely; Pawan, Vijay, Hemant, Ashish, Suresh and Kishor Kumawat. After investigation of the case, challan was presented only against
accused Kishor Kumawat. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 13.01.2015 ordered the conviction and sentence of accused Kishor Kumawat under
Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959. It was ordered that the recovered revolver and cartridges be deposited with District Armoury Sikar. Appeal filed
by the appellant Kishor Kumawat was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment/order dated 08.01.2016. Appellant Vijay had also filed an
appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with the prayer that in-fact, he was the licensed owner of the revolver in
question and the same be released to him. However, the said appeal was dismissed being time barred by the Appellate Court vide order dated
11.01.2016. Hence, the present revision petitions.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the prosecution story, six persons (accused named in the FIR) were apprehended in
‘Jalano Ki Haveli’. The said persons were watching IPL cricket match and were indulging in gambling. In this regard, a separate case was
registered against the accused and as per his information, accused have been acquitted in the said case. The present case was registered on the
allegation that a revolver and six cartridges had been recovered from petitioner Kishor Kumawat, although, he was not having any license to keep in
his possession the said articles. However, the revolver in question belongs to Vijay recovered and he was having a valid license in his favour in this
regard. Just to falsely implicate the accused in this case, the licensed revolver of the petitioner Vijay was shown to be in possession of petitioner
Kishor Kumawat. Rather the revolver had been taken in possession by the police from petitioner Vijay. Learned counsel has further submitted that the
petitioner Vijay had moved two applications for release of the revolver in question to him on superdari and along with the said applications, petitioner
Vijay had attached copy of the license in his favour. However, the said applications were dismissed vide orders dated 17.11.2014 and 18.03.2015.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.
There is a force in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. As per the prosecution story, Pawan, Vijay, Hemant, Ashish,
Suresh and Kishor Kumawat were apprehended while indulging in gambling in ‘Jalano Ki Haveli’. It is the prosecution story that the revolver
along with cartridges in question were recovered from the possession of petitioner Kishor Kumawat. After investigation, challan was only presented
against petitioner Kishor Kumawat. During trial, accused Vijay (not challaned) appeared in the witness box as DW-1 and deposed that the revolver in
question, in-fact, belonged to him. The same was taken from him by the Additional Superintendent Police.
Admittedly, as per the prosecution case, petitioner Vijay was also present at the spot at the time of the alleged recovery. It appears that with a view to
falsely register a case under the Arms Act, 1959, the revolver recovered from petitioner Vijay, was foisted on petitioner Kishor Kumawat. The
defence put forth by the petitioner Kishor Kumawat appears to be plausible. Copy of the license in favour of petitioner Vijay is available on record as
he had produced the same along with his application for release of the revolver to him on superdari. Application filed by the petitioner Vijay during trial
was dismissed vide order dated 17.11.2014 on the ground that the revolver in question formed case property and could not be released to him till the
decision of the case. Petitioner Vijay had moved another application on 18.03.2015 for release of the weapon to him on superdari as he was the
license holder of the same. However, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 18.03.2015 on the ground that the weapon in question had
already been ordered to be deposited with District Armoury Sikar. As per Exhibit-P-7, the revolver recovered from the petitioner Kishor Kumawat
was having No. NPFG 24627. A perusal of the license issued in favour of petitioner Vijay shows that with regard to revolver in question, petitioner
Vijay was having a valid license on the date of recovery as the license of the petitioner Vijay had been renewed up to 02.07.2014, whereas, recovery
in the present case was effected on 17.05.2014. Thereafter, the license had been again renewed up to 02.07.2017.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the prosecution case is rendered doubtful as it is probable that the petitioner Kishor Kumawat
might have been falsely involved in this case. It is a settled preposition of law that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond the shadow of
reasonable doubt. Whenever, there is doubt is the prosecution story, the benefit of the same has to be extended to the accused.
Accordingly, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 222/2016 filed by Kishor Kumawat is allowed. Impugned judgments/orders passed by the Courts
below are set aside. Petitioner Kishor Kumawat is acquitted of the charge framed against him. Consequently, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.
291/2016 filed by Vijay has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.