Criminal Appeal No. 649-DBA of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 649-DBA of 2000 Date of decision : 13.5.2008 State of Haryana .....Appellant Versus Kala Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. P.S. Sullar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the appellant. Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 4. S. D. ANAND, J. Inspite of notice, none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents/accused No. 1 and 3. However, in view of the fact that leave to appeal in this case had been granted by a Coordinate Bench as early as on 8.12.2000, we opted to examine the judgment of the Trial Court. The prosecution ( in case FIR No. 251 dated 7.4.1997 under Sections 279, 336, 307 IPC, 25/27-54-59 of the Arms Act and 61-1A-14 of the Excise Act ) was launched by the Police of Police Station, Shahabad against the respondents/accused on the allegations which may be indicated as under:- On 7.4.1997, at about 8.30 P.M., a police party headed by SI Devi Chand was available at Saha turning, G.T. Road, Shahbad in connection with excise checking. The police party travelled to that place by Government vehicle Nos. HR-07-1746 and HR-03-9267. Constable Jasbir Singh and Constable Daulat Ram respectively were driving vehicles. A truck bearing registration No. PAT-8445 came from Ambala side while it Criminal Appeal No. 649-DBA of 2000 -2- was being driven at a rash speed and in a negligent manner. The vehicle did not come to halt inspite of being signaled by SI Devi Chand. Police party gave a chase and was able to apprehend Kala Singh son of Balbir Singh. The truck was found loaded with 2808 bottles of country made foreign liquor having the marks of Officers’ Choice. Respondents/accused were prosecuted on the above indicated charges on the allegations delineated in the preceding paras. The following record-based facts, noticed by the learned Trial Judge are reproduced as under:- The Investigating Agency was not able to prove the weapon used by the respondents/accused while firing. The weapon, which had been allegedly used, was not recovered in the course of investigation by the police. The empty cartridge of the shot fired from the truck was also not recovered by the police. As per testimony of PW-7 SI Laxmi Narain, the police party consisted, besides himself, of four ASIs and one SI, all of whom carried their service revolvers. Besides it, Om Parkash was carrying a sten gun. “The other employees were also having some weapons” but PW-7 SI Laxmi Narain “did not remember the description of the same”. Learned Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, correctly recorded the following observations:- “According to PW-7 SI Laxmi Narain, his Jeep was behind the jeep of SI Devi Chand. The jeep of SI Devi Chand was immediately behind the truck in question. According to this witness, the truck in question was chased by the police party for about 15 K.Ms. According to him, walky talky sets were fitted in the jeeps. Despite that no information was flashed to Criminal Appeal No. 649-DBA of 2000 -3- the police station about the truck in question. According to this witness when the accused tried to run over the members of the police party, none of them tried to fire at the truck. Though, the jeep in which SI Devi Chand was present, was immediately behind the truck, he had not fired upon the truck.” Besides it, learned Trial Court also noticed certain discrepancies in the ocular testimony. It found, in the context, that “the afore-mentioned discrepancies in the statements of PW-7 Laxmi Narain SI and PW-8 Devi Chand SI cannot be brushed aside as of minor nature.” In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are clear in our mind that the finding of exoneration recorded by the learned Trial Judge and also the reasoning noticed in support thereof, is in order and does not call for any interference. We have examined the impugned finding on the touch stone of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Vs. State of Gurarat, AIR 1996 SC 2035, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 2158 for adjudication of a such like controversy. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the present plea must be invalidated and we so order accordingly. ( S. D. ANAND ) JUDGE May 13, 2008 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) Pka JUDGE