Allowed

Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Dec 2013CRA-S/776/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against conviction for arson and mischief, the High Court acquitted the appellant. The Court held that running away did not prove arson, the 14-hour reporting delay raised suspicion, and the unidentifiable recovery of currency notes was insufficient to convict. Previous conviction and sentences were set aside.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Order regarding case property remains unaltered.

Gurcharan Singh Vs State of Punjab — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRA-S-776-SB-2003 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶4

CHANDIGARH

¶5

CRA-S-776-SB-2003 (O&M)

¶6

Date of Decision: December 12, 2013

Gurcharan Singh

…Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab

…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶13

Present: Mr. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶14

Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent.

¶15

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.

¶16

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, both dated 13.3.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur, whereby the appellant, Gurcharan Singh, was held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 381 and 436, IPC, and ordered to undergo the following sentences:

¶17

Under Section	Sentence	Fine	In Default
381, IPC	RI for 3 years	`200/-	RI for 2 months
436, IPC	RI for 7 years	`5000/-	RI for 6 months

¶18

Kapoor Prashant 2014.01.03 13:54 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶19

CRA-S-776-SB-2003 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶22

Roop Lal (PW2) was running a rice sheller in the name and style of 'M/s Madan Lal Rice Mills and General Mills'. The appellant, Gurcharan Singh, was employed as a Gate-man at the said sheller at the monthly salary of 1,800/-. One room in the sheller was being used for general purposes and storage of necessary articles. Hakam Rai (PW3) was an Accountant at the sheller and using the said room as his office. On the intervening night of 28/29.6.1999, Roop Lal (PW2) stayed at the sheller and when he woke up at 5:00 a.m., he intended to have a round of his sheller. He saw that flames were emitting from the room of the Accountant and Gurcharan Singh (appellant) was standing in front of the said room. On seeing Roop Lal (PW2), the appellant fled away from there. With the help of workers, the fire was extinguished. On checking, it was found that out of Rs. 10,000/- kept in a rexine bag, one packet containing 100 currency notes of the denomination of 50/- was missing and yet another bundle of the currency notes of the same denomination was lying half burnt in the bag. One box containing pesticide worth 5,000/-, ten bags of thread worth 50,000/-, hundred pieces of rubber roles worth `80,000/-, two-hundred pieces of parcel roles worth

¶23

Kapoor Prashant 2014.01.03 13:54 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶24

CRA-S-776-SB-2003 (O&M)

¶25

¶26

25,000/-, and three packets of thread (Sutli) of the value of 9,000/- were lying burnt. Thus, a total loss to the tune of `1,70,000/- was suffered by Roop Lal (PW2). In spite of the efforts made, the appellant, Gurcharan Singh, could not be traced out. The matter was reported to ASI Balkar Singh (PW5) by Roop Lal (PW2) vide statement (Ex.P2).

¶27

The said statement was sent to the police station, on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.P2/B) was registered. ASI Balkar Singh (PW5) visited the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan (Ex.P6). He also recorded the statements of the witnesses in terms of Section 161, Cr.P.C. The burnt articles (MO-2 to MO-86) were taken into police possession vide recovery memo (Ex.P15)

¶28

The appellant, Gurcharan Singh, was arrested on 4.7.1999. During interrogation, the appellant suffered disclosure statement (Ex.P3) and in pursuance thereof a bundle of `5,000/- was recovered from the heap of paddy husk lying near a transformer of electricity supply situated by the side of the sheller and the same was taken into police possession vide recovery memo (Ex.P4). The rough site plan (Ex.P7) of the place of recovery was prepared.

¶29

On completion of the formalities of investigation, the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was

¶30

Kapoor Prashant 2014.01.03 13:54 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶31

CRA-S-776-SB-2003 (O&M)

¶32

¶33

presented for prosecution of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 381 and 436, IPC. Since the offence punishable under Section 436, IPC, was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, therefore, the case was committed to the said Court. The appellant was chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 381 and 436, IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶34

In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:

¶35

PW1 Khushal Singh, Draftsman: In the month of July, 1999, he had visited the sheller of Roop Lal, complainant, and prepared the scaled site plan (Ex.P1) on the demarcation of ASI Balkar Singh (PW5).

¶36

PW2 Roop Lal: He is the complainant of the case and deposed in accordance with the statement (Ex.P2) suffered before the police.

¶37

PW3 Hakam Rai : He deposed that he was working as an Accountant in the sheller of Roop Lal for the last 11 years. A room was provided to him at the sheller to perform his work as Munim. Rubber rollers, account books, pesticides, thread etc. were stored in the said room. One set of keys of the room remained with Hakam Rai while

¶38

Kapoor Prashant 2014.01.03 13:54 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶39

CRA-S-776-SB-2003 (O&M)

¶40

¶41

another set was being retained by the gate-man. At the relevant time Puran Chand and Gurcharan Singh (appellant) were the gate-men. On the fateful day, Gurcharan Singh was on duty and the second set of the keys of the lock of the room was with Gurcharan Singh. When he left the room at that time, two bundles containing `5,000/- each were available in the room. On the next day at 7.30 a.m., he came to know that the room at the sheller had caught fire. By that time he reached the spot, the fire was extinguished. On checking of the bag containing Rs. 10,000/-, then only one burnt bundle of the currency notes, containing Rs. 5,000/- was found, while the second bundle was missing. The articles lying there were burnt.

¶42

PW4 HC Santokh Singh : He deposed that on 4.7.1999, ASI Balkar Singh questioned Gurcharan Singh at the Police Station, Makhu, and it was disclosed that he had concealed a bundle of currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/-, of the value of Rs. 5,000/-, in the heap of paddy husk near the transformer of sheller of Roop Lal and he could get the same recovered. In

¶43

Kapoor Prashant 2014.01.03 13:54 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶44

CRA-S-776-SB-2003 (O&M)

¶45

¶46

pursuance of his disclosure statement, the appellant got recovered a bundle of currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/- of the value of Rs. 5,000/-. This recovery was effected in the presence of ASI Balkar Singh and HC Santokh Singh and the same was taken into police possession vide recovery memo. (Ex.P4). He also deposed that on 29.6.1999, ASI Balkar Singh had taken into police possession one half burnt rexine bag, thread, rubber polisher and a bundle of half burnt currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/-, amounting to Rs. 4100/-, vide recovery memo (Ex.P5).

¶47

PW5 ASI Balkar Singh: He is the investigating officer and deposed in detail with regard to the investigation conducted by him.

¶48

PW6 Sarwan Masih: He was Municipal Councillor of Municipal Council, Makhu. He did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Nothing material could be elicited from the lengthy cross-examination conducted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶49

After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C.,

¶50

Kapoor Prashant 2014.01.03 13:54 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶51

CRA-S-776-SB-2003 (O&M)

¶52

¶53

was recorded and all the incriminating circumstances appearing on record against him were put to him. He denied the same and pleaded innocence. In answer to the penultimate question, he stated that 3/4 months prior to the occurrence, he had left the service of Roop Lal. No evidence in defence was led by the appellant.

¶54

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial court held the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 381 and 436, IPC, and awarded the sentence as has been discussed in the earlier part of this judgment.

¶55

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that merely running away of the appellant from the spot after seeing Roop Lal (PW2) would not be sufficient to raise a presumption that the appellant had set the room on fire, especially when it had not come on record that any one saw the appellant setting the room on fire. He further submitted that once the appellant was employed as a gate-man in the sheller and his identity was not in dispute, then there was no question to report the matter to the police after a delay of approximately 14 hours. He further argued that the recovery of the currency notes would not led to the conclusion that it was the same bundle of the currency notes, which were found missing from the office of the

¶56

Kapoor Prashant 2014.01.03 13:54 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶57

CRA-S-776-SB-2003 (O&M)

¶58

¶59

complainant. He further argued that where stringent punishment is prescribed in that eventuality, the prosecution is supposed to lead qualitative evidence. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab, 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 349 , and a judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Chaman Lal v. State, 1987 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 308 .

¶60

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that there was no question for the complainant, Roop Lal (PW2), to falsely implicate his own employee in the present case. He further submitted that from the evidence led by the prosecution, it has been proved without any shadow of reasonable doubt that it was the appellant and the only appellant who set the room on fire. Concealing of a bundle of `5,000/- and the recovery of the said bundle in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the appellant would further strengthen the prosecution version. He further submitted that Roop Lal (PW2) was busy in extinguishing the fire and taking stock of the damaged articles, therefore, some time was consumed and the matter was reported to the police on the same evening and,

¶61

Kapoor Prashant 2014.01.03 13:54 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶62

CRA-S-776-SB-2003 (O&M)

¶63

¶64

as such, there was no delay and even if there was, that was well explained.

¶65

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the entire material available on record.

¶66

By now it is settled that there is a vast gap between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ . From the perusal of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, it is abundantly clear that on the basis of running away of the appellant from the spot, it was presumed that he had set the room on fire. The running from the spot could be due to variety of reasons. It all depends upon the personal preservations and one reason could be that after seeing the owner of the sheller, the appellant, who was serving as a gate-man, might have thought that the owner would be angry and might cause harm to him, therefore, to save himself, he (appellant) ran away from the spot. Even otherwise, it is conceded case of the prosecution that the appellant was an employee and he was on duty on the fateful day and, thus, he was supposed to be present on the spot and after seeing the owner he might have ran away from the spot. Therefore, from the mere presence of the appellant near the room would not lead to a conclusion that he had set the said room on fire, particularly when his

¶67

Kapoor Prashant 2014.01.03 13:54 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶68

CRA-S-776-SB-2003 (O&M)

¶69

¶70

presence was natural on the spot by virtue of his duty. In the matter of Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel (supra) , Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that mere act of absconding, on the part of the accused, alone does not necessarily lead to final conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused, as even an innocent person may become panic stricken and try to evade arrest, when suspected wrongly of committing a grave crime; such is the instinct of self-preservation.

¶71

There appears to be substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant when he submitted that there was huge delay of 14 hours in reporting the matter to the police, from which the following conclusions can be drawn:

¶72

a) The occurrence had not taken place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution;

¶73

b) The prosecution was not aware of the involvement of the accused; and

¶74

c) The prosecution was waiting for convenient witnesses to depose in its favour.

¶75

Once it is conceded position of the prosecution that the appellant was an employee at the said sheller, in that eventuality there should not have been any reason for Roop Lal (PW2) to report the matter to the police after the delay of 14 hours. While dealing with this issue, this Court

¶76

Kapoor Prashant 2014.01.03 13:54 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶77

CRA-S-776-SB-2003 (O&M)

¶78

¶79

is conscious of the fact that delay by itself might not be sufficient to outrightly reject the whole case of the prosecution, but if the matter is reported to the police after a huge delay without there being any explanation, then a suspicion about the prosecution story is raised and the benefit of such suspicion has to be extended to the accused. In the case in hand, the alleged incident of fire was witnessed by Roop Lal (PW2) at about 5:00 a.m. while the matter was reported to the police at about 7:00 p.m., i.e. after a gap of about 14 hours, and that too without any explanation. The submission of the learned counsel for the State that Roop Lal (PW2) remained busy in extinguishing the fire and taking stock of the damaged articles does not find favour with this Court because it has come in the deposition of Roop Lal that the fire was controlled within an hour with the help of the workers of the sheller.

¶80

The next incriminating circumstance against the appellant is the recovery of a bundle of currency notes, containing Rs. 5,000/-. According to the prosecution case, the appellant had ran away from the spot after seeing Roop Lal (PW2), in such a situation, it was highly improbable for him to conceal the bundle of currency notes under the heap of paddy husk near the transformer situated in front of the rice sheller, belonging to the complainant. Even otherwise,

¶81

Kapoor Prashant 2014.01.03 13:54 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶82

CRA-S-776-SB-2003 (O&M)

¶83

¶84

the recovery of the bundle containing currency notes from the open place on the main road would not lead to the conclusion that the same was concealed by the appellant.

¶85

From the perusal of the evidence available on record, it transpires that neither Roop Lal (PW2) nor Hakam Rai (PW3) deposed before the Court that the bundle alleged to have been recovered at the behest of the appellant was the same bundle containing currency notes, which was kept in the rexine bag on the previous night of the incident, in the room which was set on fire. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that if the appellant wanted to commit theft then there was no reason for him to leave behind another bundle of currency notes which was later found to be half burnt by the complainant. In the matter of Chaman Lal (supra) , it was held that recovery of currency notes from the accused, which were not identifiable, cannot involve the accused with commission of offence.

¶86

Yet another circumstance against the appellant was extra-judicial confession allegedly suffered by the appellant before Sarwan Masih (PW6), but he did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile at the request of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. His lengthy cross-examination by the learned Additional Public

¶87

Kapoor Prashant 2014.01.03 13:54 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶88

CRA-S-776-SB-2003 (O&M)

¶89

¶90

Prosecutor could not yield any positive result for the prosecution.

¶91

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the alleged charges against the appellant and, as such, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur, is liable to be set aside and the same is set aside. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. However, the order passed by the learned Trial Court regarding the case property including the currency notes shall remain unaltered.

¶92

December 12, 2013 Pkapoor

¶93

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE

¶94

Kapoor Prashant 2014.01.03 13:54 I attest to the accuracy of this order

Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurcharan Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saurabh @ Hunny Vs State of Haryana

Iqbal Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ajay Chhabra Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Darshan Singh Vs State of Pb.

Sultan Singh and Others Vs State of Hy.

Tarlochan Singh @ Tochi Vs State of Punjab