Sukhchain Singh vs State Of Haryana

CRA-S-308-SB-2011 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
627 CRA-S-308-SB-2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 05.11.2026
Sukhchain Singh . . . Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Eashan Bhardwaj, Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. Present appeal has been preferred by appellant-Sukhchain
Singh, challenging the judgment of conviction dated 13.01.2011 and the
consequential order of sentence dated 14.01.2011, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned
Trial Court'). Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court had tried
three accused, namely, (i) Sukhchain Singh, (ii) Gurbaj Singh @ Baj Singh
and (iii) Ranvir Singh, for the offence punishable under Section 307 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and acquitted all of
them of the said charge.
However, appellant-Sukhchain Singh alone was held guilty of
the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and, vide the
consequential order of sentence dated 14.01.2011, was sentenced to undergo
RASHMI
2026.11.13 19:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-308-SB-2011 (O&M) 2
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, along with a fine of
Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
Thus, by way of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed
the judgment of conviction dated 13.01.2011 as well as the order of sentence
dated 14.01.2011, insofar as the same relate to his conviction under Section
25 of the Arms Act.
2. Prosecution case originated from the statement of injured-
Darshan Singh, on the basis of which SI/SHO Purshotam Dass recorded the
FIR. The allegations, as noticed in paragraph No.3 of the judgment dated
13.01.2011 passed by the learned Trial Court, read as under:
“ that he is working as a driver with Gian
Singh Rana resident of village Goran on combine machine.
On 17.11.2009 at about 7.30 P.M, injured Darshan Singh
along with his father Sardool Singh was standing in front of
his house in the street. In the meanwhile accused Sukhchain
Singh son of Hazara Singh resident of Dera Mangal Singh,
who is uncle of injured Darshan Singh, alongwith his two
sons accused Baj Singh and Ranbir Singh
came over there in a tractor-trolley. The tractor was of
Swaraj Company and at the relevant time the tractor was
being driven by accused Ranbir Singh whereas accused
Sukhchain Singh and Baj Singh were sitting on the side of
the tractor. Baj Singh and Ranbir Singh sons of Sukhchain
Singh, on seeing injured Darshan Singh and his Father,
exhorted while saying "let us see each other". While
saying so accused Sukhchain Sing, with an intention to
kill the complainant/injured Darshan Singh, fired a shot from
RASHMI
2026.11.13 19:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-308-SB-2011 (O&M) 3
the country made revolver in his hands. The bullet struck
against the left shoulder of the injured Darshan Singh and he
also sustained injuries on his face portion, neck and other
parts oI the body. All the three accused
fled away from the place of occurrence thereafter on the
tractor-trolley. The family members of injured Darshan
Singh got arranged a private vehicle and the injured was
shifted to General Hospital Kaithal”
3. Motive attributed by injured-complainant Darshan Singh was
that litigation pertaining to certain land was pending between the parties and,
on account of the said dispute, all the accused had allegedly conspired to
eliminate him.
4. After registration of the FIR, investigation was carried out. On
18.11.2009, pursuant to a disclosure statement allegedly suffered by
appellant-Sukhchain Singh, he got recovered one .12 bore rifle, along with
one live cartridge and one empty cartridge.
Upon completion of the investigation, the final report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented on 09.01.2010. Thereafter, vide order
dated 04.03.2010, charges for the offence punishable under Section 307 read
with Section 34 IPC were framed against all the accused. However,
appellant-Sukhchain Singh was additionally charged for the offence
punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
5. During the occurrence, injured-Darshan Singh had suffered the
following five injuries, as noticed in the medico-legal examination:
RASHMI
2026.11.13 19:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-308-SB-2011 (O&M) 4
“ 1. A lacerated wound with blackening of edges on
left cheek at the maxillary prominence of size 2
x 2.5 x 1 x muscle deep.
2. Lacerated wound with blackening of edges on left
side of neck root of size 2 x 0.75 x .5 cm with Bleeding.
3. Lacerated wound with blackening of edges on left
side of lower neck of size 1 x .5 x .5 cm, .5 cm
above the injury No.2.
4. Lacerated wound with blackening of edges on left
side of chin 4.5 cm lateral to the mid-line.
5. Multiple oval shape wound with blackening of
edges on left side of shoulder upper part with
bleeding. There were multiple holes at the site
of injury on T-Shirt ranging from .75 x 2 cm x .5 cm.”
During the medico-legal examination of injured-Darshan Singh,
conducted on 17.11.2009 by Dr. Kamal Mehra (PW-12), it was also noticed
that there was a smell of alcohol in his breath .
6. Injured-Darshan Singh himself stepped into the witness box as
PW-1. During his deposition, he stated that at about 07:30 p.m. on
17.11.2009, while he was standing in the street in front of his house, a shot
struck him. However, he categorically stated that, owing to darkness, he
could not identify the person who had fired the shot. Rather, he candidly
deposed that none of the accused facing trial had fired any shot towards him.
Even during his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing
substantial could be elicited from him regarding the identity of the assailant.
Thus, in the absence of any direct evidence supporting the prosecution
version regarding the identity and involvement of the accused, the learned
RASHMI
2026.11.13 19:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-308-SB-2011 (O&M) 5
Trial Court, in paragraph No.30 of the judgment, acquitted all the accused,
including the present appellant, of the charge under Section 307 read with
Section 34 IPC.
However, appellant-Sukhchain Singh was held guilty only of
the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Hence, the present
appeal.
7. Learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the appellant refers to
the testimony of PW-3 Bhupender Singh, who was projected by the
prosecution as a witness to the disclosure statement allegedly suffered by
appellant-Sukhchain Singh on 18.11.2009, as well as the consequent
recovery of the rifle.
However, during trial, the said witness did not support the
prosecution case and turned hostile. During his examination by the learned
Public Prosecutor, when confronted with his earlier version, the witness
explained that the police had obtained his signatures on blank papers on
18.11.2009. He categorically denied that appellant-Sukhchain Singh had
suffered any disclosure statement in his presence or that any rifle or
cartridges had been recovered at the instance of the appellant in his
presence .
8. Learned counsel further submits that, when the incriminating
circumstances were put to the appellant while recording his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., he specifically denied the recovery and explained that
RASHMI
2026.11.13 19:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-308-SB-2011 (O&M) 6
the police had obtained his signatures on blank papers while he was in
custody.
Further, by referring to the FIR (Ex.PA), learned Legal Aid
Counsel submits that the initial allegation was that the shot had been fired
from a country-made pistol, whereas, during investigation, the prosecution
projected the recovery of a .12 bore rifle from appellant-Sukhchain Singh. It
is contended that this material discrepancy, coupled with the testimony of
PW-3 Bhupender Singh, demolishes the prosecution case regarding the
alleged recovery. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that the appellant
deserves acquittal even of the charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
9. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the prosecution
has successfully established the recovery of the .12 bore single-barrel gun
(Ex.P1), along with one live cartridge and one empty cartridge (Ex.P2), at
the instance of appellant-Sukhchain Singh. It is argued that, pursuant to his
arrest on 18.11.2009, the appellant suffered a voluntary disclosure statement
(Ex.PD), which led the police party to the place where the firearm and
cartridges had been concealed beneath a heap of paddy (ziri).
Learned State counsel further submits that the testimony of the
official witnesses, particularly ASI Balbir Singh (PW-10) and Investigating
Officer SI Purshotam Dass (PW-8), remained consistent regarding the
manner of recovery, preparation of the sketch (Ex.PD/1) and sealing of the
recovered articles with seal 'PD'.
RASHMI
2026.11.13 19:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-308-SB-2011 (O&M) 7
10. Learned State counsel further contends that the link evidence
remained intact, as Head Constable Ramesh Chand (PW-7), the Malkhana
Moharrir, confirmed that the sealed parcels containing the firearm and
cartridges were deposited in the Malkhana in an intact condition and were
subsequently handed over to Constable Dharambir (PW-4) for their safe
transportation to FSL Madhuban.
It is further submitted that the FSL report (Ex.PM/3) established
that the firing mechanism of the recovered .12 bore single-barrel gun was in
proper working order. Additionally, the requisite sanction under Section 39
of the Arms Act (Ex.PK) was duly proved by Jagan Nath (PW-11), Reader to
the District Magistrate, Kaithal.
11. Learned State counsel also argues that the testimony of police
officials cannot be discarded merely because they belong to the police force.
It is submitted that, even though independent witness Bhupender Singh
(PW-3) and injured-Darshan Singh (PW-1) did not support the prosecution
case, the consistent testimony of the official witnesses, read along with the
documentary evidence, sufficiently establishes the recovery of the firearm
and cartridges from the appellant.
It is further submitted that the appellant has undergone only
slightly more than three months of actual custody and, therefore, the
conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court under Section 25 of the Arms
Act, as well as the sentence imposed upon him, does not warrant any
interference.
RASHMI
2026.11.13 19:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-308-SB-2011 (O&M) 8
12. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record available on file.
13. This Court finds considerable substance in the submissions
advanced by learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant. The first and
foremost aspect which requires consideration is the material discrepancy
between the firearm allegedly used in the occurrence, as described in the
FIR, and the firearm subsequently shown to have been recovered from the
appellant.
A perusal of the FIR (Ex.PA) reveals that the allegation was that
appellant-Sukhchain Singh had fired a shot from a country-made pistol.
However, during investigation, the prosecution projected the recovery of
a .12 bore rifle from the appellant. Thus, the firearm allegedly used in the
occurrence and the firearm subsequently shown to have been recovered are
not the same. Significantly, the prosecution has not established any
connection between the firearm allegedly used in the occurrence and the
firearm subsequently recovered.
It is also a matter of record that the prosecution failed to
establish the charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC against any
of the accused, and all of them were acquitted of the said charge. Though the
acquittal of the appellant from the charge relating to the occurrence does not,
by itself, determine the issue of his liability under Section 25 of the Arms
Act, the aforesaid circumstances are certainly relevant while examining the
reliability of the alleged recovery.
RASHMI
2026.11.13 19:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-308-SB-2011 (O&M) 9
14. Another significant aspect is the testimony of independent
witness PW-3 Bhupender Singh, who was projected by the prosecution as a
witness to the disclosure statement and the consequent recovery. During his
deposition, he categorically denied that appellant-Sukhchain Singh had
suffered any disclosure statement in his presence on 18.11.2009. He further
stated that his signatures had been obtained by the police on blank papers
and that no rifle or cartridges had been recovered at the instance of the
appellant in his presence.
Even when the said witness was confronted with his earlier
version during his examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he
maintained his stand and did not support the prosecution version regarding
the disclosure statement or the recovery.
15. This Court is conscious of the settled legal position that the
testimony of police officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground that
they are official witnesses, and their testimony can form the basis of
conviction if found reliable and trustworthy. However, in the present case,
the issue is not merely that the independent witness has turned hostile.
Rather, the independent witness has specifically denied the very disclosure
statement as well as the recovery allegedly effected at the instance of the
appellant.
Further, the appellant, while making his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., also denied the alleged recovery and maintained that his
RASHMI
2026.11.13 19:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-308-SB-2011 (O&M) 10
signatures had been obtained on blank papers while he was in police
custody.
16. No doubt, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of
official witnesses, the link evidence, the FSL report and the sanction granted
under Section 39 of the Arms Act. However, the existence of a valid
sanction, the proper sealing and transmission of the recovered articles and
the fact that the firearm was in working condition or not, by themselves,
establish that the firearm was recovered at the instance of the appellant or
that he was in conscious and unauthorised possession thereof.
The prosecution was required to establish the foundational fact
of recovery and the appellant's possession of the firearm beyond reasonable
doubt. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the material
discrepancy regarding the nature of the firearm allegedly used in the
occurrence, coupled with the testimony of PW-3 Bhupender Singh denying
the disclosure statement and the consequent recovery, creates a reasonable
doubt regarding the prosecution version.
17. Thus, upon a cumulative consideration of the evidence,
particularly (i) the description of the firearm in the FIR as a country-made
pistol, whereas the alleged recovery is of a .12 bore rifle; (ii) the categorical
denial by independent witness PW-3 Bhupender Singh of the disclosure
statement and recovery; (iii) the explanation furnished by the appellant in his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and (iv) the absence of any other
independent witness supporting the alleged recovery, this Court finds that
RASHMI
2026.11.13 19:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-308-SB-2011 (O&M) 11
the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under Section 25 of the
Arms Act against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
18. Consequently, this Court finds that the impugned judgment of
conviction dated 13.01.2011 and the consequential order of sentence dated
14.01.2011, insofar as they relate to appellant-Sukhchain Singh's conviction
under Section 25 of the Arms Act, cannot be sustained.
19. Accordingly, present appeal is allowed . The judgment of
conviction dated 13.01.2011 and the order of sentence dated 14.01.2011,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, qua appellant-
Sukhchain Singh for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms
Act, are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under
Section 25 of the Arms Act by extending to him the benefit of doubt.
20. Appeal stands disposed of according
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
November 05, 2026
rashmi
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
RASHMI
2026.11.13 19:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document