Crl.A. No.1142-SB of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl.A. No.1142-SB of 1999 DATE OF DECISION: July 11, 2011 SALIM @ BARU RAM S/O SULEMAN ...APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT 2. Crl.A. No.1061-SB of 1999 RAJBIR SINGH S/O HAWA SINGH ...APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT 3. Crl.A. No.223-SB of 2000 UMA RANI AND ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT 4. Crl.A. No.542-SB of 2000 DALER @ AJAY ...APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL. 1. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: MR. VISHAL GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT in Crl.A. No.1142-SB of 1999. MR. KRISHAN SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT in Crl.A. No.1061-SB of 1999 and Crl.A. No.223-SB of 2000. MR. CHARANJIT SINGH BAKSHI, ADDL.A.G., HARYANA. Crl.A. No.1142-SB of 1999 -2- M.JEYAPAUL, J.(ORAL) 1. This judgement shall dispose of four criminal appeals, namely, Crl.A. No.1142-SB of 1999, Crl.A. No.1061-SB of 1999, Crl.A. No.223- SB of 2000, Crl.A. No.542-SB of 2000 arising out of a common impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence vide which the five accused in their respective criminal appeals were convicted for offence under Section 399 IPC and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to further undergo R.I. for 6 months. They were also convicted for the offence under Section 402 IPC and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.400/- each and in default to undergo further period of 4 months R.I. Their sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.12.1997, PW6 Inspector Desh Bandhu received some secret information that the accused were making preparation for committing dacoity. He formed three raiding parties separately headed by PW4 ASI Satpal Singh, PW5 ASI Ramesh Chander and himself. The raiding parties having parked the vehicle at some distance proceeded to the wheat field near Pehowa to Kurukshetra road at about 10.50 p.m. on the said day and overheard the interaction of the accused. They surrounded the accused. One of them was instructing that Babli would stop trucks coming from Pehowa by showing torch. At the same time, Uma would remain with Babli and as soon as the truck stops, Uma would engage the driver in her talks and settle the amount with the driver for illicit relationship with Babli. Daler who was armed with iron rod would keep sitting behind the tree. The accused Rajbir armed with pistol Crl.A. No.1142-SB of 1999 -3- would stay with him. When the driver got down from the truck, accused Rajbir would place his pistol near his ear and accused Daler would not allow other persons to alight from the truck. Accused Rajbir would ask the persons in occupation of the truck to hand over whatever was in their possession. Then the booty would be shared equally. PW6 Inspector Desh Bandhu gave signal to the members of the raiding parties and directed the accused to stand up with raised hands. The raiding party headed by PW4 ASI Satpal over-powered accused Babli and Uma. The raiding party headed by PW5 Ramesh Chander apprehended Salim, but accused Rajbir absconded from the scene of occurrence under the cover of darkness. One country made pistol loaded with 303 cartridge and two more 303 bore live cartridges were recovered from accused Salim. Recovery memo was prepared. One iron rod and a small knife was recovered from the possession of Daler under recovery memo. Double cell torch was recovered from accused Babli. Ruqqa was sent to the Police Station for registration of the case. Site plan was prepared and witnesses were examined. Their statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Investigation was completed and final report was filed. 3. The trial Court having relied upon the evidence led in by the prosecution recorded conviction as stated supra. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently submit that the prosecution has come out with a totally artificial version as to the plan hatched by the appellants herein in an open field. It would have been impossible for the police party to apprehend the accused when they have come totally unarmed, more specially when the accused were allegedly Crl.A. No.1142-SB of 1999 -4- armed with weapons. Despite the fact that PW6 Inspector Desh Bandhu had got furtive information in advance, he had not chosen to associate any independent witness in this case. The recovery part of the case had been stage-managed, he would submit. 5. Per contra, Mr. Charanjit Singh Bakshi, Addl.A.G., Haryana would contend that some of the accused were previously involved in cases of this nature. The recovery effected in this case would corroborate the case of the prosecution that the accused were found in preparation to commit dacoity. Lastly, he would submit that PW3 Patwari of the village concerned who inspected the scene of occurrence after about 3 months time has deposed that there was standing crops at the scene of occurrence. Therefore, it is his submission that the trial Court has rightly placed reliance on the material evidence on the side of the prosecution and rendered a verdict of conviction. 6. The case as such projected by the prosecution is totally riddled with artificiality. All the five accused would not have stood at the very same place, that too in an open field, even after spotting some of the police officials approaching them to encircle. It is quite unbelievable that one of the accused disclosed the plan chalked-out in loud voice and the same was scrupulously over heard by the police officials. Any plan for that matter which had been chalked-out by the culprits would not have been the subject matter for discussion again at the scene of occurrence. Further the evidence of the prosecution that the raiding party without missing even a single word overheard the entire interaction between the accused is found to be totally untrustworthy. Crl.A. No.1142-SB of 1999 -5- 7. There is no material on record to show that the raiding parties headed by PW4, PW5 and PW6 separately, were armed with weapons. It is in evidence that the accused were armed with weapons. When the police party, which was totally unarmed, approached the culprits who were armed to the teeth, the culprits would have definitely opened fire and would have attempted to escape from the scene of occurrence. The prosecution has come out with a case that the accused who were armed stood still at the scene of occurrence, the moment they were encircled by the raiding party. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, PW6 had not chosen to associate any independent witness to witness the occurrence in spite of the fact that he had got secret information about the proposed dacoity plan to be committed by the accused in advance. 9. I find that the recovery of the weapons also has been stage- managed by the prosecution. Yet another fact will have to be noticed by this Court. PW3 Patwari of the village concerned who prepared the site plan has categorically stated that standing wheat crops was found at the scene of occurrence and none of the crops were found trampled upon. If at all the occurrence had unfolded in a wheat field as projected by the prosecution, the standing wheat crops would have been definitely trampled upon by the culprits as well as the raiding parties. It is on record that PW3 had not visited the site immediately after the occurrence. He had taken about 3 months time to visit the site and prepare the site plan. No explanation is forthcoming from the prosecution as to why such a long delay has occasioned in the matter of preparation of the site plan by PW3. At any case, even if the site was inspected after three months, the trampled wheat Crl.A. No.1142-SB of 1999 -6- plant would have grown weakly and the said features would have been noted by PW3 in his site plan, but no such feature noticed by PW3 is found in the site plan. 10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I find that the case of the prosecution does not pass the test of credibility. But, unfortunately, the trial Court has relied upon the unbelievable story reeled out by the prosecution and recorded conviction. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that some of the accused had already completed the sentence imposed on them. That is the most unfortunate part of the case. 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, all the appellants are found not guilty of the offence under Section 399 and 402 IPC. The judgement of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the trial Court as against all the five accused is set aside. The appeal is allowed and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 12. The bail bonds executed by the respective appellants stand discharged. July 11, 2011 (M.JEYAPAUL) Gulati JUDGE