The principal reasoning weighed with the designated companyrt has been the factum of there being numberpanchnama or even the seizure of carbine gun.
100/ each.
15 D. B. Chavan and evidence of PW.
Be it numbered that the accused persons including the respondent herein were prosecuted for companymitting robbery of a carbine gun of PW.2 Anil Kumar Srivastava, police companystable of police head quarter, Nanded along with two absconding accused on or about 25.1.1992 at 8.00 p.m. near the Sachkhand Gurudwara and Bhagat Singh Road, Nanded and while companymitting the said robbery the accused persons used deadly weapons i.e. companyntry made revolver, spear and caused grievous hurt to PW.2 Anil Kumar Srivastava, which struck a terror in the society and the accused persons were unauthorisedly in possession of the arms punishable under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act as also under Section 3 2 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 hereinafter referred to as TADA Act .
3 Pola Singh Puran Singh for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment undergone by them till the date of the judgment pronounced by the designated companyrt, i.e, 3rd of October, 1996 and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.
As per the evidence of PW.4 Surjeet Singh, he had snatched the said revolver from the person of accused Jagendra Singh after the accused was handed over to him by PW.2 Anil Kumar.
As per the evidence of PW.4 Surjeet Singh, he had handed over the said revolver to PW.
The definite evidence of PW.2 is only that he accosted accused Jagendra Singh while all the three accused persons ran away with his carbine gun.
PW.2 Anil Kumar did number identify the revolver before the companyrt, as the same revolver, which was used by accused Jagendra Singh for threatening him at the time of incident.
15 D.B Chavan had been that he had brought the said revolver from the police chowki at gurudwara gate No.
1 Arvinder s o Dharam Chand Sharma, accused number2 Jagendra Singh Khelsingh Binda and accused No.
Secondly, the evidence of PW.2 Anil Kumar recorded that accused Jagendra Singh was armed with a companyntry made revolver and he PW.2 was threatened by accused Jagendra Singh on the point of the said revolver.
The state of Maharashtra is in appeal against the order of the designated companyrt under TADA Act .
