IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 2003 1 Paramjit Singh @ Balwinder Singh S/o Lal Singh R/o Vill. Bindukhera, P.S. Rudrapur At present R/o Kachchi Khamaria, P.S. Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar 2. Ranjit Singh @ Raju @ Charan Singh S/o Sampurna Singh @ Pooran Singh R/o Gulab Ka Majra, Kelakhera P.S. Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar At present R/o Bindukhera, P.S. Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar …… Appellants Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Respondent Mr. B.N. Maulkhi, Amicus Curiae for the appellants. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Additional Government Advocate for the respondent With Criminal Appeal No. 157 of 2003 Paramjit Singh @ Balwinder Singh S/o Lal Singh R/o Vill. Bindukhera, P.S. Rudrapur At present R/o Kachchi Khamaria, P.S. Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar ……Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Respondent Mr. B.N. Maulkhi, Amicus Curiae for the appellants. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Additional Government Advocate for the respondent With Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2003 Ranjit Singh @ Raju @ Charan Singh S/o Sampurna Singh @ Pooran Singh R/o Gulab Ka Majra, Kelakhera P.S. Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar At present R/o Bindukhera, P.S. Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar ……Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Respondent Mr. B.N. Maulkhi, Amicus Curiae for the appellants. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Additional Government Advocate for the respondent JUDGMENT Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Since the above three appeals have arisen out of the common judgment and order dated 23.04.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/IIIrd F.T.C., Udham Singh Nagar, Rudrapur in S.T. Nos. 258 of 2002, 259 of 2002 and 260 of 2002, therefore, the appeals are being disposed of together by this common judgment. These appeals have been preferred by the accused/appellants against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2003 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for eight years u/s 394 I.P.C. & a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine the appellants shall further undergo six months R.I. The accused/appellants have also been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years u/s 307 I.P.C. & fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine the appellants shall further undergo two months S.I. The accused/appellants were also convicted u/s 25/27 Arms Act & sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year each. It was further directed that the sentences should run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that Narendra Singh was an employ of Cooperative Society at Nanakmata on 12/06/2002. He was working in the said society as Clerk/Cashier. On 12/06/2002, he was going to Nainital Cooperative Bank, Vidora to deposit Rs.2,14,950/- alongwith his colleague Kharak Singh. He was carrying the above money in the briefcase. As soon as they reached near the grove of Dharam Singh, near Vidora village, suddenly two persons appeared and threw mirchi powder on their eyes and snatched away the briefcase from the hand of Narendra Singh. Thereafter, the miscreants fled away from the spot. Kharak Singh and Narendra Singh cried for the help. Thereupon, Kulwant Singh, Balwant Singh, Kuldev Singh, Meher Singh, Kishan Singh, Ramu and others, who were the employees of Samiti came there and chased the accused/appellants. Mahesh Joshi immediately informed the police station Nanakmata about the incident on phone. All of them chased the accused/appellants. Meanwhile, the police party also reached at the spot and they also chased the accused/appellants. The accused/appellants fired upon these persons with intention to kill them. In the meantime, Jairnail Singh tried to catch the accused/appellants. The accused/appellants fired upon Jairnail Singh due to which he sustained the firearm injuries on his person. The accused/appellants also fired upon Darshan Singh who also sustained injuries on his person. Finally, the accused/appellants were apprehended and on interrogation, they disclosed their names as Paramjit Singh and Charan Singh. Both the accused/appellants were found having the country made pistol with them. The recovery of country made pistol; holes of cartridges; and stolen briefcase containing the aforesaid amount was made from the possession of the accused/appellants. Thereafter, the accused/appellants were taken to the police station alongwith the recovered articles. A report to that effect was lodged in the police station at 11:50 a.m. Separate fard memos were prepared for the recovered articles, i.e. briefcase; stolen money; country made pistol; and holes of cartridges. Thereafter, the injured were sent for medical examination. After completing the investigation, the police submitted the chargehseets against the accused/appellants before the court concerned. 3. After submission of chargesheets the accused-appellants were committed to the court of Sessions for trial and the trial court framed charges u/s 394 / 307 I.P.C. and 25/27 Arms Act against the appellants. The accused-appellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed their trial. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as eight witnesses. Narendra Singh PW1 is the informant of the case. The accused/appellants snatched away the briefcase from Narendra Singh PW1 wherein a sum of Rs.2,14,950/- was kept. Jairnail Singh PW2 is the injured witness who has sustained injuries in the incident. S.O. Omi Ram Arya PW3 reached at the spot and saw the accused/appellants running and they were apprehended by him and the public, S.I. S.P. Singh PW6 and S.I. R.S. Sharma PW4 are the Investigating Officers of this case. The matter was firstly investigated by S.O. Omi Ram Arya PW3 on receiving the information on phone, thereafter, the matter was entrusted to S.I. S.P. Singh PW6 and finally after the transfer of S.I. S.P. Singh PW6, the investigation was taken up by S.I. R.S. Sharma PW4. He submitted the chargesheets against the accused/appellants. Dr. P.C. Pandey PW5 is the Medical Officer who has examined injured Jairnail Singh. He also examined the accused/appellants. Dr. H.B.Rajput PW7 is the Medical Officer who has examined injured Darshan Singh. Darshan Singh PW8 is an injured eyewitness. 5. The accused-appellants were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and they have pleaded not guilty to the charges. The accused/appellants have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on appreciation of the evidence held the accused-appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that there is no dispute that the injured Jairnail Singh PW2 and Darshan Singh PW8 sustained the injuries on 12/06/2002 at about 11:00 a.m. Jairnail Singh PW2 was medically examined by Dr. P.C. Pandey PW5 at about 12:15 p.m. on 12/06/2002 and he found the following injuries on the person of the injured:- 1. Small (0.3 cm. x 0.2 cm.) abrasion over inner portion of Rt. clavicle. 2. 0.3 cm. x 0.4 cm. x muscle deep laceration over outer surface, middle portion of Rt. forearm. 3. Multiple, small rounded, laceration over front and back of left thigh. 4. Small rounded muscle deep laceration just below in medial side of let foot ankle joint. The doctor prepared the medical examination report Ex.Ka.12 at the time of the examination of the injured Jairnail Singh PW2. He opined that injuries Nos. 2, 3 & 4 were kept under observation and X-ray was advised for the said injuries. It was further opined that the said injuries could have been caused by firearm on 12/06/2002. 9. The other injured Darshan Singh PW8 was examined by Dr.H.B.Rajput PW7 at about 3:05 p.m. on the same day. The doctor prepared the medical report Ex.Ka.15 of the injured Darshan Singh PW8 at the time of medical examination. The doctor found the following injuries on the person of injured Darshan Singh PW8 :- 1. Two abrasions 1 cm. dia. One overarm and one over forearm. Anterior aspect. Surrounding skin is reddish colour. Inflammation is present. 2. Abrasion 1 cm. x 1 cm. over posterior aspect of right middle finger (1st I.P. joint). Serum discharge is present. The doctor opined that the said injuries could have been caused on 12/06/2002 at about 11:a.m. in the morning. He further opined that the injuries were fresh. Both the injured are said to be present at the spot and they ran behind the accused/appellants to catch hold of them. According to the prosecution case, the accused/appellants also sustained injuries while they were being apprehended. After the arrest of the accused/appellants, they were also medically examined by Dr. P.C. Pandey PW5. Appellant Paramjit Singh was medically examined on the date of the incident at about 12:30 p.m. and following injuries were found on his person:- 1. 6 cm. x ½ cm. x bone deep lacerated wound over right side skull about 8 cm. above right eyebrow. Profuse bleeding. 2. 6 cm. x 4 cm. red contusion over right side of skull 5 cm. backward to injury No.1. 3. 5 cm. x 7 cm. red contusion over right side of skull about 6 cm. above Rt. ear. 4. Multiple red contusion over right upper limb. 5. Multiple red contusion over back. 6. 2 small laceration muscle deep over upper surface of left foot 7. 11 cm. x 6 cm. red contusion over upper half of right leg. 10. On the same day, the appellant Ranjit Singh @ Charanjit Singh @ Raju was also examined at about 12:20 p.m. on the date of the incident and following injuries were found on his person :- 1. 5cm. x ½ cm. x bone deep lacerated wound over right side skull about 7 cm. above and backwards to Rt. ear. Oozing of blood. 2. 6 cm. x 4 cm. red contusion over Rt. side of skull about 8 cm. above Rt. ear. 3. 5 cm. x 3 cm. red contusion over right side of skull about 5 cm. above Rt. ear. 5. 6 cm. x 4 cm. red contusion over right shoulder. 5. Multiple red contusion over whole of the back. 6. 6 cm. x 4 cm. red contusion over left thigh lateral side. Both the accused/appellants were medically examined by Dr. P.C. Pandey PW5. The doctor has opined that both the accused/appellants could have sustained the injuries at about 11:00 a.m. on 12/06/2002. The said injuries were fresh and it could have been received by the accused/appellants by some blunt object. Thus the injuries on the person of the accused/appellants and the injured Jairnail Singh PW2 and Darshan Singh PW8 establish that they sustained the injuries on the date, time and place as indicated above. 11. Now, it is to be decided who were the authors of the injuries; whether after committing the robbery, the accused/appellants fled away from the place of incident; whether the accused/appellants were chased by the public; and whether the accused/appellants were apprehended by Jairnal Singh PW1, police personnel and other persons after a distance of 1 km. from the place of the incident. The prosecution case rests on the direct evidence of the eyewitnesses. Narendra Singh PW1 has stated in his evidence that he was an employ of Cooperative Society at Bidora. After collecting a sum of Rs.2,14,950/- from Cooperative Society, he alongwith his colleague Kharak Singh was going to District Cooperative Bank, Nainital, Branch Bidora to deposit the said amount. When they reached at about 100 meters away from the Society office, near the grove of Dharam Singh, the appellants appeared all of a sudden before them and threw mirchi powder on their eyes. Thereafter, the appellants snatched the briefcase from the hand of Narendra Singh PW1 and ran away from the spot. Kharak Singh and the informant Narendra Singh PW1 sought for the help. Thereupon, Balwant Singh, Beldev Singh, Meher Singh and Kishan Singh, and other employees came there and they also started to run behind the appellants to catch them. Mahesh Joshi immediately informed the police station Nanakmata on phone about the incident. The appellants ran towards the river and the injured Darshan Singh PW8 and Jairnail Singh PW2 other persons also ran behind the accused/appellants to apprehend them. Meanwhile, the police also reached at the spot and they also ran behind the accused/appellants. The miscreants/appellants afraid of being caught fired upon Darshan Singh PW8 and Jairnail Singh PW2 who sustained the firearm injuries on their persons. The appellants were finally apprehended and thereafter the police took them into custody. Both the accused/appellants were caught with country made pistols in their possession. The recoveries of country made pistols and three holes of cartridges were made. Thereafter, the recovery memos for the recovered articles were prepared at the spot and the accused/appellants were taken to the police station. The injured Jairnail Singh PW2 and Darshan Singh PW8 alongwith the appellants were sent for the medical examination. Thereafter, a report was lodged to this effect by Narendra Singh PW1 at the police station. 12. The prosecution also examined Jairnail Singh PW2 who has also deposed before the court that on the date of the incident he was at his shop which was situated in his house itself. He heard the noise and was told that Narendra Singh PW1 has been robbed. He also ran alongwith other persons behind the appellants to catch hold them. The accused/appellant Paramjit Singh was having C.M.P. whereas the accused/appellant Ranjit Singh was holding the briefcase in his hand. The appellants fired upon Jairnail Singh PW2 and he sustained the injuries but with the help of other persons, the accused/appellants were apprehended. After the arrest of the accused/appellants, injured Jairnail Singh PW2 fell down on the ground and was taken to the police station from where he was sent to Khatima Hospital and thereafter referred to Haldwani Civil Hospital where he remained admitted for five days. He also narrated the vivid details of the incident. 13. The prosecution also adduced the evidence of S.O. Omi Ram Arya PW3. He is the Station Officer of Nanakmata. He has stated in his evidence that on 12/06/2002 at about 11:00 a.m., he received information on phone that two miscreants have robbed the briefcase from the possession of Narendra Singh PW1. He alongwith the police party reached at the spot. He saw that the people were running behind the accused/appellants to catch hold of them. The accused/appellants were apprehended with the help of public. The accused/appellants were having country made pistol and cartridges with them. The briefcase robbed by the accused/appellants was also recovered from appellant Paramjit Singh. After their arrest, both of them told their names as Paramjit Singh and Charan Singh. The empty cartridges used in the firing were recovered at the spot and recovery memo was prepared at the spot. He has further stated that the recovered articles were sealed at the spot. Thereafter, the accused/appellants and the injured were taken to the police station where report was lodged by Narendra Singh PW1. The injured Jairnail Singh PW2 and Darshan Singh PW8 were sent to the hospital for their medical examination. The appellants were also sent to the hospital for medical examination. He also deposed that the accused/appellants Charan Singh did not disclose his real name. After inquiry, his name came to light as Ranjit Singh @ Raju R/o Bindu Khera, Rudrapur. The appellant Paramjit Singh was found to be the resident of Nanakmata. 14. The prosecution also examined injured Darshan Singh PW8 who has also stated in his evidence that he was sitting outside the Cooperative Society office at about 11:00 a.m. on the date of the incident. When he heard the hue and cry, he also ran towards the place of the incident and chased the accused/appellants. The appellants fired upon the persons who were apprehending them. They fired upon him and Jairnail Singh PW2. They had sustained the injuries by the firing of the appellants. The accused/appellants were firing with the intention to kill them. The accused/appellants we having country made pistol in their hands and after their arrest by the public and the police, the briefcase was recovered from the possession of the accused/appellants. The country made pistol and cartridges were also recovered from their possession. 15. Thus, the prosecution has adduced the evidence of the person who was robbed and who has seen the incident. The prosecution has also adduced two injured witnesses who followed the appellants while fleeing away from the spot. The prosecution has adduced the evidence of Jairnail Singh PW2 and Darshan Singh PW8 who were the injured eyewitnesses of the incident. They have narrated the vivid details with regard to the entire incident in their evidence. All the four witnesses, namely Narendra Singh PW1, injured Jairnal Singh PW2 Om Ram Arya, PW3 and injured Darshan Singh PW8 have corroborated the evidence of each other on the material points. Injured Jairnail Singh PW2 and injured Darshan Singh PW8 sustained the injuries at the time of the incident and the injuries have been proved by the prosecution. It is a settled position of law that injured eyewitness stands on a higher pedestal than an ordinary witness. It is also well settled principle of law that the testimony of an injured witness is sufficient to base the conviction and no further corroboration is required. The presence of the injured witness cannot be discarded lightly. There is no doubt about the presence of the injured witnesses at the time of the incident. Injured Jairnail Singh PW2 and Darshan Singh PW8 were cross-examined at length but nothing could be elicited in their evidence to discard their testimony. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevance and efficacy. It is also well settled that the testimony of the injured is sufficient to base the conviction and no further corroboration is required. {See Narendra Nath Khaware Vs. Parasnath Khaware and others 2003 SCC (Crl) 1144 and State of U.P. Vs. Kishan Chand and others 2004 SCC (Cri) 2013}. 16. Learned Amicus Curiae further contended that the prosecution has not produced Ramu, the Peon of the Samiti and Kharak Singh who was accompanying Narendra Singh PW1 at the time of the incident. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that these two witnesses could have corroborated the incident. As such, non-production of these witnesses belies the prosecution story. Learned Addl. G.A. refuted the contention. On due consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view although it is true that Kharak Singh and Ramu have not been produced before the court but the evidence of injured eyewitnesses and other witnesses cannot be discarded on this ground alone. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the injured witnesses who are said to have apprehended the appellants after the robbery are the natural witnesses of the incident. They are not interested in any way in the prosecution. The learned Amicus Curiae tried to point out the statement of accused/appellants Ranjit Singh u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has stated that he and accused Paramjit Singh was beaten up by the associates of Jairnail Singh. Thereafter, they were falsely implicated in this case. He has also stated that he went to the fare of Nanakmata and from there, he went to the house of Paramjit Singh where a scuffle took place between him and Jairnal Singh PW2, that’s why he was falsely implicated in this case. But the defence has not put any suggestion to that effect to Jairnail Singh. No enmity has been shown between them which supports the defence theory. There is no suggestion that there was any scuffle or marpeet with Jairnail Singh PW2. Thus the defence has taken such a plea, after completion of the evidence. There is no effective cross examination about the enmity of the witnesses with the accused/appellants. Thus, it is revealed that there is no enmity at all with the appellants. I have no reason to disbelieve testimony of the witnesses. They being the independent witnesses, it would be their endeavour to see that the real culprits are punished and they would not implicate wrong persons in the crime so to allow the real culprit to go unpunished. Thus their testimony did not reveal that they were in any way inimical to the accused/appellants. The learned Trial court after thorough scrutiny, found the evidence of the injured witnesses as well as Narendra Singh PW1 to be credible and cogent. The evidence of all the above four witnesses are consistent and cogent in the cross examination also. In such a situation, the other witnesses who were present at the spot are not necessary to be produced to multiply the evidence of incident on the same point. If Ramu, the peon would have been produced before the court, his evidence would have been assailed on the ground that he was the employee of the society where Narendra Singh PW1 was employed. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the evidence adduced and on my independent appreciation, I find the evidence of the eyewitnesses consistent and reliable in their narration of the incident. Moreover, it is a well settled position of law that it is not always necessary to multiply the evidence of the incident on the same point. It has to be seen what is the quality of the evidence. It is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity, which is required. If the evidence available on record is otherwise satisfactory in nature and can be said to be trustworthy then increase in the number of witnesses cannot be the requirement of the case. In my opinion non-examination of other witnesses does not cast any infirmity in the prosecution case. 17. Learned Amicus Curiae further contended that there are contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses. He pointed out that Narendra Singh PW1 has stated that people were running behind the appellant and in the meanwhile Jairnail Singh PW2 came from the front side of the appellants and he also joined in arresting the accused/appellants. He further stated that the witnesses have stated that Jairnail Singh PW2 was also running behind the appellants alongwith other persons. He further contended that Jairnail Singh PW2 has only stated that one fire was made by the miscreants whereas two persons were injured and three holes of cartridges were found at the spot. He also pointed out that there is difference between the statements as to how and where the recovery memos were prepared. In substance the learned Amicus Curiae contended that the contradictions are of vital in nature and it belies the entire prosecution story. Learned Addl. G.A. refuted the contention. He pointed out that the accused/appellants threw mirchi powder in the eyes of Narendra Singh PW1 and Kharak Singh made the noise for the help. If I imagine the situation at the time of the incident, Narendra Singh PW1 might have suffered the misdeed of the miscreants and what he could have seen and perceived in such a situation, he has stated the fact. The discrepancies pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae are not of vital importance. It is pertinent to mention here that when a witness appears before the court, sometimes he may not stand the test of cross examination, which may be sometimes, because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skilful cross-examiner and at times under the stress of cross-examination, certain answers are snatched from him. When a witness faces an astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and, therefore, minor discrepancies have to be ignored. (vide Krishna Mochi Vs. Vs. State of Bihar 2002 (6) SCC p/81). 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Munshi Prasad (supra) as follows :- “10. ………………………………………. Incidentally, be it noted that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters without affecting the core of the prosecution case, ought not to prompt the court to reject evidence in its entirety. If the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and the trial court upon appreciation of evidence forms opinion about the credibility