Allowed

Ramesh Chander v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2012CRA-S/1057/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This high court heard criminal appeals challenging convictions for dacoity. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the intent to commit dacoity due to lack of corroboration and reliance on single unconfirmed witness testimony.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders of conviction and sentencing under Sections 399 and 402 IPC were set aside and the accused were acquitted.

Ramesh Chander Vs State of Haryana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

No057 SB of 2000

lpzs

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶6

CriminalAppealNo057 SB of 2000 Date ofdecision

¶7

1 RameshChander and another
0 eeeeee Appellantse
1 Pdl
0 versus
0
11
t5 Stateof Haryana
e
32 e Respondent
Z
Present Mr JSBedi Advocate for
Mr Singh AAG Haryana
X
t Criminal Aopeal N001071SB of 2000
21
Kanwar Bhan and another
tll
e7
Z versus
0 State
of Haryana
l
1 Whether Reportersof Local may be allowed to
seethe
2 To be referredto the Reportersor not7 8J0
3 Whether should be reportedin the Digest2
JOYTI RANI
CORAMPooja2013.10.24 14:33w HONBLE MRJUSTICE KCPURI 2016.03.28 16:19
True Copy of the I attest to the accuracy and
Original integrity of this document
PHHC,
Chandigarh

¶8

¶9

CriminalAppealNo057 SB of²⁰⁰⁰

¶10

¶11

1 0 0 0 11 C9 I Z m Q

¶12

L3 f 2 21 Qm

¶13

Present Mr Arvind SinghAdvocate^for Mr Singh^AAG Haryana

¶14

KCPURI Je

¶15

By^thiscommon I intend^to disposeof Criminal Appeal^N001057eSBof 2000 titled^as Ramesh Chander and another versus Stateof Haryanaand Criminal AppealN001071SB of 2000 titled^as Kanwar Bhan^versus Stateof Haryanaasthe^same havearisen out of the same incident For conveniencefacts^are being^taken from Criminal Appeal^Noe1057SB of 2000 titled as Ramesh Chander and another^versus Stateof HaryanaeThe aforesaid have directed the presentappealsagainstthe dated181 02000 and order dated 19102000 passedbyIearnedAdditionalSessionsJudge^Karnal

¶16

2 The^case of the in brief i^1S that^on 2881998 SI Randhir Singhalong^with other policeofficials in a jeepbearing No HR05Ee8402 were present on Kaithal Chowk Assandh In the meantime^a secret infonnation^was receivedthat^on theSaOdonroad near Jindal Ice Factoryin a desertedrice sheller factoryunder the tree of Sheeshamflve personsarmed with weapons^are talkingto each other and

¶17

thereis that theynlay commit^some crime Thereafter Sultan Singh^son of^Shamsher Singhof village^{Gansinacamethereand the} police party^was talking^withhimthree differentraidingpanies^were formed Of one partyRandhir Singh^was the head while ASI Lila Ram^was the headof

¶18

JOYTI RANI the secondpartyPooja2013.10.24 14:33 and third party^was headedbyHC Azad SinghAfter that 2016.03.28 16:19 True Copy of the I attest to the accuracy and

¶19

Original integrity of this document all thePHHC,three partiesreached the deserted^rice sheller and ghervedThe Chandigarh

m 0 0 J2 5 X Z

Z ao 3 Z

No1057 SB of 2000

accusedin the deserted^rice sheller^were talkingto each otherandSultan heard^as they^were sayingthat it is not still darkand^on darknessthey would commit dacoityon Nirankari PetrolPump A warning cardonof the area was givento the accusedand they^were On they^{told their names} to be Rameshson of KhazanSingh^Jaswant Singhson ofGajeSinghSuryason ofRam Kishan Ramesh^son of Kulbir Singharmedwith pistol Kanwar Bhan^son of armed with pistol One cartridgeof^{315borerecoveredfrom} KanwarBhan and from the ofRamesh Kumar^son ofKulbir two live were also recovered Onedandawas recoveredGom accused Mani After of^necessary challanagainstall the accused^was before the Illaqa Copies of documentsrelied upon by the were suppliedto the accused The^trial committedthe^case videorderdated26101998^to the Courtof^{Sessionfortrial}

¶27

as the offenceallegedagainstthe accused were triablebythesaidCourt

¶28

3 The trial Court framed under Sections399 and 402 of the Indian PenalCode o in shor the Act l againstthe accused They pleaded^not guilty^tothe chargesand claimedtrial Duringtrial accused Surya^Mani had been declared offender vide order dated

¶29

67000

¶30

4 In order to prove its^case examined ASI Daya

¶31

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:19 ASI I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

Pooja Nand2013.10.24 14:33True Copy of the6PWell HC JaipalSinghPW29 SunderLal Patwari PW39 ASI Original PHHC, SubhashChandigarh^Chander oPW HC JagbirSingl59 SI Randhir SinghPW

¶33

¶34

CriminalAppealNo057 SB of 2000

¶35

¶36

1W t 0 0 X 0 X Z w Q I Z ClO 7 2 Ll

¶37

61^{andcloseditsevidence}

¶38

5 The accused^were examinedunderSection313CrPC and they denied all the materialand have pleadedinnocence In defence the accused placedreliance^on ExDA and ExDB copies^of statementsofwitnesses recordedin ArmsAct cases andclosedthe^same 6 The trial Court atler hearingthe learnedcounsel for the parties convictedall the presentaccused for an offenceunder Section399 and 402 IPC vide order dated 18102000 and sentencedvide order dated 19102000

¶39

asunder^l

¶40

All the convicts^were sentenced to undergorigorous for^a periodof Sve yearsand^to pay^a fine ofRs10001 each In default offine^to lnher undergorigorous for one month under Section 399 IPC and All the convicts

¶41

¶42

were further sentencedto rigorous for^a periodof threeyears andto pay a flne ofRs001 each In default offine to further undergorigorous for^a periodof

¶43

fifleen daysunderSection 402 IPC Both the^sentences were however orderedto^run Feeling^{dissatisSedwiththeaforesaid} appellants

¶44

accused havepreferredseparateappealsas mentionedabove

¶45

JOYTI RANI 8 Pooja2013.10.24 14:33 2016.03.28 16:19 True Copy of theI have^heard leamed^counsel for^the partiesand have^gone I attest to the accuracy and Original integrity of this document PHHC, throughChandigarhthe recordsofthe^case

¶46

¶47

Q CriminalAppealNo1057 SB of 2000

¶48

¶49

Im iZ 0 0 X t5 Z Z a 0 I

¶50

Z CO V7 Z

¶51

9 Learned counsel for the have submittedthat^case of theprosecutionis and 6111of infirmities In fact all the were illegally^detainedon 258 1998 and the version of the prosecutionthattheywere planningfor dacoityon 2 881 998is a made^up stor It is contendedthat to theevidenceon thetlle a robbery was committed at the LiquorVend of Sultan Singhwitness^on 2581998 and^a separateFIR in this regard^was recorded The very fact that said SultanSinghhas been stated^to be^an witness goes a long way^to show that story^1S not provedat all It is hirther submittedthat^case of^the is that Randhir Singh officer has^over heard the accused planning^to commit dacoityat N1rankariPetroI Pump However it 1S submittedthat exceptthe bald statement made bySI RandhirSinghno other witness has beenexamined by^the to support that version Sultan SinghPW who to the was an witnesshas not been examinedrathergivenup^as havingbeen^won over Thesaidwitnessshould havebeenproducedto prove the^case ofthe prosecution

¶52

10 It is lrther contendedthat the wall between^the accusedand the policeparty^lS stated to be 5Y feet in heightas perthe prosecution^case whereasHC JaipalSinghPW2 and SunderLal Patwari PW3 have giventhe heightof said wall as SlX feet Accordingto the

¶53

the accused have gatheredat the placeof raid prior^to

¶54

JOYTI RANI notice that at 5A5pm at 5A5pm 5A5pm^ln 2016.03.28 16:19I attest to the accuracy and

¶55

Pooja 2013.10.24 14:33 5A5pmTrue Copy of the^{on2881998The Courtcan} notice that at 5A5pm at 5A5pm 5A5pm^ln Original PHHC, Chandigarh In^case the versiOn the month ofAugust It^1S not^so dark lS

¶56

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

i 1 0 0 I 0 I Z

I t Z 10 7 Z Qm

CriminalAppealNo1057 SB of 2000

¶62

taken^into account thatheightof the^wallwas 5Izfeet^{and the} policeparty could^haveseen the accused ln that case the accusedcould have also noticedthe policepartyand in those^{circumstances} it cannot^be that^{theaccusedwouldhavetalked about} robbery^inthe of police In^case heightof the wall was six feet and in that then the policepartycould not have heard plannigof the accused the robberyTakingthe^case from any angle the version is not proved

¶63

11 In Suleman versus State of Delhi throuPh Secretarv¹⁹⁹⁹²¹ ReCRe ICriminall³⁷⁷ Honble Apex^{Courthas held}

¶64

thatwherethe^distance betweenthe accused^andthe policepartyis not given ln thatcase storyof the regardingthe the conversatiotl planningto commit dacoity^1S doubt611and the accused^were

¶65

12 It is furthersubmittedthat^no witness Oom the for the hasbeenjoined^nor examined There was ample to join^the witness^as accordingto the site planthe place^{redis reserved} by^residential colony

¶66

13 Learnedcounselfor the havesubmittedthat Division Benchof this Court in Mahavir son of Milla Ram resident of

¶67

villae Narar Tehsil and District Kaithal versus State of Harvana

¶68

reported^In 201061 RCR Criminall paee 3073 has held that JOYTI RANI Pooja 2016.03.28 16:19 2013.10.24 14:33True Copy of themust prove some evidencedirectlyor indirectlythat I attest to the accuracy and Original integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh the accused persons had assembled for no other purpose than to make

¶69

¶70

CriminalAppealNo1057 SB of 2000

¶71

¶72

ae 3 0 0 Z 0 I Z a r I C Z IlQ e7 Z

¶73

for commission of offenceof dacoityIn the absenceof any suchevidence^mere and recoveryof fireannsdo not prove the underSections399 and 402 IPC

¶74

14 Learned counselfor the havefurther submittedthat of material witnessesis fatal for the To^prove thiscontention they have relied upon Thulia Kali vse The StateofTeNe Reported in AIR 1973 SupremeCourt paoe 501

¶75

15 Learned counsel for the have also relied upon authoritiesBatlea alias Baneu versus State of Harvana reoorted^Ill 2011 21RCeRe 1Criminal 1 paee 238 and Baldev Sinoh^versus State of Harvana reportedin 1988 l11ReCeRe1CriminalI^paee 629

¶76

16 In replyto the abovenoted submissions leamed Statecounsel hassupported andorder ofthe trial Coun Thereis nothingon thefile to show that appellantsWere on 2581 998 as alleged by^them It is submittedthat there^was no enmityofthe with the Witnesses SI Randhir Singhhas overheardthe converslon regarding^the planningto commit robbery So in^these circumstances appellantshave been rightlyconvictedand sentencedbythe trial Court^as aforesaid

¶77

17 I have givenmy though11considerations to the rival

¶78

submissionsmadebythe leamed counsel for the parties

¶79

18 In order to prove the of offence under

¶80

JOYTI RANI to prove that 2016.03.28 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶81

Pooja Sections2013.10.24 14:33399 and 402 of the IPC the is to prove that True Copy of the Original PHHC, thereChandigarhis of 6ve or more persons and the purpose for their

¶82

¶83

CriminalAppealNo1057 SB of 2000

1 1 0 0 C 5 Z Cn

I C Z CO 7 Z fl

should be to commit dacoity^or for dacoityMere of five personsdoesnot constitutethe offence underSections399 and 402 of theIPC This view is by^{theDivision Benchofthis} Courtⁱⁿ Mahavir son of Milla Ram resident of villaoe Narar Tehsil

¶89

and District Kaithas case fsupra To prove the said of ofYence the has relied upon the of singlewitnessSI Randhir Singh6PHL69 This wltness hasstatedthattheyheardthetalk of the personsgatheredthereand they^were sayingthattheywould committhe dacoity^afterSunset He gave warningand encircled them and were

¶90

A country^made pistolof^12bore was recoveredfrom^the possession of Ramesh^son of Kulbir Singhalongwith two live whereas315 bore gun^was recoveredfrom Kanwar Bhan alongwith live

¶91

Ramesh^son of Khazan^was havingtorch whereasJaswantSingh was havingsword and SuryaMani^was armedwith danda 19 The hasexamined JagbirSingh but he has stated that Randhir Singhhas only heard about the conversatioll

¶92

planningof^accusedfor dacoity^{Hehasnotstated thathe} overheardthe talk of the accused The other materialwitnesswhich could have deposedabouttheplanningof^{the accused was} SultanSinghbut^that witness has not been examined It is not dispute d uringthe course of

¶93

that Sultan Singh^wasa in^case under Section392 IPC recorded^on 2581⁹⁹⁸ robberyof liquor^So in these JOYTI RANI Pooja 2016.03.28 16:19 circumstances he2013.10.24 14:33 cannot be said to be witness Otherwise True Copy of the I attest to the accuracy and Original integrity of this document PHHC, alsoChandigarhthe testimonyof SI Randhir Singhcould have been corroboratedby

¶94

¶95

¶96

0 Criminal AppealNo1057 SB of 2000

¶97

¶98

1 0 0 Z 40 I Z m 0 I C0 Z m 7 Z

¶99

¶100

said SultanSingh

¶101

20 Honble Court in Thulia Kalis case ipral hasheld that wherethe materialwitnesshasbeenwithheldin that^case the prosecutionstoryis doubtAll

¶102

21 The is to prove that there^was chancesof

¶103

by^the police^party planningof dacoityby^the

¶104

The distancebetweenthe accusedand the policeparty

¶105

the conversationhas not been mentioned^lll the site plan on the record However HC JagbirSinghPM51 hasstatedthat distance^was about 50 yardsfrom the wall That storydoesnot appealto the^reason It would not be possiblefor^a person to hear the conversationfrom L

¶106

22 As per Patwari the wall the accusedand police

¶107

party was about 6feetin heightbut accordingto RaghbirSingh Vm69it was5 feet in heightSo 111these circumstancesthe accusedcould have visualize thepresenceofpolicepartyand in thosecircumstancestheywould not have daredto talk about planningto commitrobbery

¶108

23 The secret information^was that five persons haveassembled 1 and they^were making to commit robberyon Nirankari Petrol Pump^but RaghbirSingh6PW69^{hasnotstatedthat} appellantswere talking about the robbery^at Nirankari Petrol Pump So the

¶109

hassimplyproducedone witnessabout the thetalk

¶110

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶111

Pooja which2013.10.24 14:33remaineduncorroboratedand is doubt11 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh

¶112

¶113

CriminalAppealNo1057 SB of 2000

¶114

¶115

1 r 3 0 0 r l5 I Z L I L0 Z rlo 7 Z tl

¶116

¶117

24 In Sulemans^case ISuPraIHonble theApexCourt

¶118

hasheld that it is doubtfulthat accused^were so loudlythat their conversationcould be heard outside In that^case also distancebetweenthe accusedand thepoliceparty^was not givenand it^was observedbytheApex Court that story Section 399 and402 IPC is doubtful However the convictionof theaccusedunder Section25 of the Arms Act was upheldin that case

¶119

25 In authorityBaeea alias Banus case Isupral also this Court held that it is difficult to believethat accused had assembledin deserted brickekiln and^were so loudlythat policepartycould heartheir conversion were acquittedof^the chargesunderSections399 and 402 IPC However the conviction underSection25 of the Arms Act was upheldin that^case also 26

¶120

In authorityBaldev Sinehs^case ipral^{ithasbeenheldthat} assembly of five personsⁱⁿ a abandonedhouse at nightwith arms without any^evidence intention to commit dacoityis not sufflcient to prove^the ofotYenceunder Section 402 IPC

¶121

¶122

27 So ln view of the above discussion both the appeals mentionedabove^are acceptedThe dated18102000 andorder dated 191 02000 of the trial Court standsset asideand the accusedstands

¶123

acquittedbygiving^{them benefit ofdoubt}

¶124

28 Fine if any depositedby^the be refunded

¶125

JOYTI RANI to themafterPooja2013.10.24 14:33True Copy of thethe decision within stipulatedperiodby^the 2016.03.28 16:19I attest to the accuracy and Original integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh State

¶126

¶127

i CriminalAppealNo1057 SB of 2000

¶128

¶129

29 A^copy of^this be sent^to the trial Court for strict

¶130

September l o 1 2012
SV
1 1
t
0
0
X
C3
I
Z
C 1
X
f
Z
DO
7
Z
CL