Delhi court upholds four year sentence to man in Arms Act case

A Delhi court has upheld the four-year rigorous imprisonment awarded to a man found in possession of an illegal country-made pistol, saying the convict had demonstrated propensity towards repeated criminal conduct.

Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh, who was hearing the appeal filed by Virender alias Kala Badal, against an October 2025 order of a magisterial court sentencing him under the Arms Act, underlined that the credibility of police witnesses cannot be doubted merely because they belong to the State’s law enforcement agency.

According to the prosecution, Virender was apprehended by the Crime Branch on June 17, 2019, near Jhareda village here following a tip-off.

A single-shot country-made pistol and two live cartridges were recovered from his possession.

In an order dated July 9, the court said, “It is well settled that no infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to the police force, and there is no rule of law which lays down that a conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by independent evidence,” the court said.

It said the principle that a person acts honestly applies equally to a police officer, unless the contrary is shown, and it is not the correct judicial approach to view the testimony of a police witness with suspicion or distrust without a good ground.

In his appeal, Virender claimed he was falsely implicated due to personal enmity, alleging the police had previously killed his brother in custody. He also alleged the absence of independent public witnesses and a discrepancy in the seal used on the seized weapon.

Trashing the claims, the court said the police did attempt to join passersby as independent witnesses, but they refused to join.

“Merely because there is no videography or photography of the alleged recovery, it cannot be said that the recovery had not been effected,” the court said, adding the discrepancy in the seal was an “inadvertent typographical error” that did not disturb the chain of custody.

Regarding the claim of false implication due to his brother’s custodial death, the court observed this claim was raised for the first time during the appeal.

“The plea now sought to be raised finds no support whatsoever in the trial court record, such a defence never having been set up at the trial stage,” the judge said.

While upholding the sentence, the court took note of the convict’s extensive criminal record, which included previous cases related to narcotics, theft, robbery, and attempt to murder.

“Keeping in view that the appellant/convict already stands convicted for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the Arms Act, for the offence of theft, as well as for one of the gravest offences, namely, attempt to murder punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, this court finds no reason to interfere with, or alter, the sentence passed and awarded by the trial (magisterial) court,” the judge said.

He said the submissions made by the appellant regarding his reformation in custody, his role as the sole bread-earner of the family, and the hardship faced by his family members, though noted, do not outweigh the gravity of the offence and the appellant’s “demonstrated propensity towards repeated criminal conduct, including offences of a grave and violent nature.”