On 04.04.1994, Jahid (PW-4), the complainant had come to village Barsat for purchasing grocery items from his village 1 Rana Majra. In the scuffle, the person who was having a drant gave a blow from its reverse side which struck Jahid (PW-4), the complainant, below his right eye.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/disclosure-and-recovery-of-weapon-a-key-factor-in-conviction/
After trail, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal convicted Anwar@ Bhugra, son of Manga Ram, Satpal son of Radhu and Om Parkash @ Bablu, son of Ram Singh u/s 394 and 397 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years along with fine of 2,000/-.
In FIR No.111 of 1994, the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of 500/-.
In his 4 statement recorded for the case under the Arms Act, Jain Singh denied recovery of any weapon of offence in his presence.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/moratorium-application-in-insolvency-case/
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the entire prosecution version has been duly supported by the witnesses.
The two versions of the prosecution namely the memo of his personal search and the memo of possession of country made pistol demolish the case of the prosecution.
In the FIR, he states that the person holding Drant (Bablu) forcibly took away the purse from the right side pocket of Harun Ali (PW-6) which was containing his identity card and 20 and the other person (none specified) took away the purse of Jain Singh (PW-5) from his pocket which had 15 and tobacco.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/legal-analysis-juvenile-justice-act-and-incarceration-period/
From the aforesaid material on record, the presence of the appellant at the scene of crime and recovery of pistol from him becomes highly doubtful and the guilt of the appellant having not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, conviction and sentence 7 cannot be upheld.
Case Title: ANWAR @ BHUGRA Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA (2023 INSC 315)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000973-000974 / 2011
