Allowed

Sunil Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Aug 2012CRA-S/1355/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these criminal appeals against conviction for dacoity and illegal possession of weapons, the High Court acquitted the appellants. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to the informant's admission that the appellants were unknown to him, lack of identification parade, and unreliable recovery of weapons allegedly planted by the police.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.10.2001 set aside; appellants acquitted; bail granted and bonds discharged.

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

¶1

CRA Nos.1355-SB and 1415-SB of 2001

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Appeal No.1355-SB of 2001

¶5

Date of Decision : 01.08.2012

Sunil Kumar

.......Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab

.......Respondent

Criminal Appeal No.1415-SB of 2001 Date of Decision : 01.08.2012

Swaran Singh

.......Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab

.......Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶18

¶19

Present: Mrs. Rahish Pahwa Dudeja, Advocate, for the appellant(s).

¶20

Mr. Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

¶21

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.

¶22

The present criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants, Sunil Kumar and Swaran Singh, challenging the judgment

¶23

-2-

¶24

CRA Nos.1355-SB and 1415-SB of 2001

¶25

and order dated 17.10.2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, (hereinafter as 'the trial Court'), convicting the accused (herein appellants) for committing offence under Sections 399, 402 of the Indian Penal Code, (for short, 'the IPC') and sentencing them as under:-

¶26

Under Section	Sentence
399 IPC	To undergo years and to `400/-, in payment of undergo R.I. each	R.I. for four pay a fine of default of fine, to further for four months
402 IPC	To undergo years each a of`300/-, payment of undergo R months each.	R.I. for three nd to pay a fine in default of fine, to further .I. for three

¶27

However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶28

The brief facts of the case in hand, as recorded by the learned trial Court in para 2 of the impugned judgment, are reproduced as under:-

¶29

“2. Briefly summoned up, the prosecution story is that on 24.11.2000, SI Jagtar Singh, SI Tehal Singh, ASI Balbir singh, ASI Manjinder Singh, ASI Sukhwinder Singh of CIA Staff Ludhiana alongwith other Police officials in Government Vehicle Allwyn Nissan bearing

¶30

-3-

¶31

CRA Nos.1355-SB and 1415-SB of 2001

¶32

registration No.PB-10AB-0018 driven by HC Balbir Singh, were present at Bus Stand Khawazke in connection with checking of suspicious persons and vehicles. There, SI Jagtar Singh received a secret information that accused Swaran Singh alongwith other co-accused Sunil Kumar, Amit Sharma, Billa and Sat Pal were present at a deserted place behind the power house of village Gaunsgarh and were making plans to commit docoities in some village and they were having deadly weapons at that time and in case a raid was conducted they could be caught red handed. The information being reliable one disclosing commission of offence under Sections 399/402 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act, SI Jagtar Singh sent ruqa Ex.PA through C. Roop Singh at 5.50 P.M. on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PA/1 was recorded at Police Station Basti Jodhewal by ASI Surinder Singh. Then the police party proceeded towards the spot and conducted a raid. Accused Swaran Singh alongwith other accused namely Sunil Kumar, Amit Sharma, Billa and Sat Pal were found to be sitting there. All of them were nabbed and personal search of the accused was conducted. A scooter mark Bajaj Chetak without number, light grey in colour having engine No.06E-568705 and chassis

¶33

-4-

¶34

CRA Nos.1355-SB and 1415-SB of 2001

¶35

number filed of was recovered regarding ownership as which accused Swaran Singh could not produce any proof of such. The scooter was taken into possession under Section 102 Cr.P.C. by SI Jagtar Singh vide recovery memo Ex.PC attested by SI Tehal Singh and ASI Rajinder Singh. From possession of accused Sunil Kumar a scooter Bajaj Chetak grey in colour having engine No.06E-872325 and chassis No. filed of without document without number was recovered regarding ownership of which Sunil Kumar could not produce any proof as such scooter was taken into possession under Section 102 Cr.P.C. by SI Jagtar Singh vide memo Ex.PB, attested by SI Tehal Singh and ASI Rajinder Singh, Personal search of accused Swaran Singh revealed a country made pistol of 303 bore with one live cartridge of the same bore regarding which he could not produce any licence which was which was seized vide Memo Ex.P1 and rough site plan Ex.PI/1 was prepared. From the possession of Sunil Kumar a country made pistol 303 bore alongwith two live cartridges of the same bore without any licence were recovered which were taken into possession vide Memo Ex.PH and rought site plan Ex.PH/2 was prepared. From possession of accused Amit

¶36

-5-

¶37

CRA Nos.1355-SB and 1415-SB of 2001

¶38

Sharma, Billa and Satpal, spring actuated knives had been recovered for possession of which they could not produce any licence. Thus, were seized vide memos Ex.PK, PJ, PL Respectively. Site plans Ex.PK/1, PJ/1 and Ex.PL/1 had been prepared. Separate proceedings under Arms Act against accused were initiated by getting the FIR registered.......”

¶39

Charges under Sections 399/402 IPC were framed against the accused-appellants to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶40

In order to substantiate the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses, viz., ASI Tirth Singh as PW1; SI Jagtar Singh as PW2; Bagga Singh, Lambardar of village Boothgarh as PW3; and SI Tehal Singh as PW4.

¶41

In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., both the accused-appellants denied all the allegations of the prosecution case and pleaded false implication in the case. It was averred that they had been apprehended by the police several days earlier and were illegally detained at CIA Staff Ludhiana, and subsequently, a false was case planted upon them. However, they did not lead any evidence.

¶42

The learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as indicated in para 1

¶43

-6-

¶44

CRA Nos.1355-SB and 1415-SB of 2001

¶45

of this judgment. Hence, the present appeals which were admitted by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2001 and 13.12.2001, respectively.

¶46

The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the FIR in the instant case was registered on the basis of information received by SI Jagtar Singh from PW3, Bagga Singh. This witness has given the names of the accused whereas in the cross-examination, he has admitted that the accused were not previously known to him. PW3, Bagga Singh is resident and Lambardar of Village Boothgarh, whereas, the appellants belong to different places. The learned counsel, thus, contends that a crude effort has been made to frame the appellants in the present case for the reasons best known to the prosecution. It is further submitted that the version rendered by the prosecution is further falsified from the fact that no identification parade was carried out. The non-joining of any independent witness also casts a doubt upon the story put forth by the prosecution to falsely implicate the appellants.

¶47

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the testimony of Bagga Singh, Lamberdar of Village Boothgarh, who is an independent witness, is unimpeachable. He further submits that the recovery of scooters and country-made pistols was effected from the appellants and they were not able to explain as to how they came into possession of the same. He lastly submits that the case of the prosecution is proved and the minor contradictions deserve to be ignored.

¶48

-7-

¶49

CRA Nos.1355-SB and 1415-SB of 2001

¶50

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

¶51

Admittedly, the ruqa was recorded on the information supplied by PW3, Bagga Singh. In his cross-examination, he has admitted the fact that the appellants are not known to him previously, whereas, the names of all the accused finds mention in the ruqa. In view of the admission of Bagga Singh in his cross-examination that the accused-appellants were not previously known to him, the whole case of the prosecution falls to ground. Moreover, in the instant case, no identification parade was carried out.

¶52

Vide separate judgments of even date, recoveries of illicit weapons from the appellants have been doubted and they have been acquitted of the charges under the Arms Act. If we presume that they were not armed with illicit weapons, but all were simply sitting together as alleged by the prosecution, then no case is made out against them. The mere fact that the appellant were found sitting and talking together did not by itself prove that they had assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity or for making preparations to accomplish that object; especially when the possession of illicit weapons from the appellants is not proved. The police officers were so over zealous in the success of this case, they planted illicit weapons on the appellants in order to get corroboration in this prosecution story.

¶53

Further, the learned counsel for the appellants has appended

¶54

-8-

¶55

CRA Nos.1355-SB and 1415-SB of 2001

¶56

Annexure P-1, a telegram sent by the father of the appellant-Sawarn Singh, addressed to the SSP Ludhiana, regarding the illegal detention of the appellant by the CIA Staff on 22.11.2002 at 6.00 a.m. The FIR in the instant case was registered on 24.11.2002, although, the same is not a part of the trial Court's record.

¶57

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case in the manner projected by it. Accordingly, the present appeals are allowed; and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.10.2001, are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The appellants are stated to be on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.

¶58

( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 01.08.2012 JUDGE atulsethi

¶59

Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No

Sunil Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Manjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Kabul Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Swaran Singh Vs State of Punjab

Swaran Singh Vs State of Punjab