Criminal Appeal No.1452-SB of 2003 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Appeal No.1452-SB of 2003 Date of decision : 12.8.2008 Kulwinder Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent 2. Criminal Appeal No.1622-SB of 2003 Bagga Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent 3. Criminal Appeal No.1759-SB of 2003 Prem Singh and another .....Appellants Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent 4. Criminal Appeal No.2020-SB of 2003 Joginder Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for the appellants in all the Criminal appeals. Mr. Munishwar Puri, Advocate for the appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 1452-SB of 2003) Criminal Appeal No.1452-SB of 2003 -2- **** Mr. Vinod Arya, Advocate for the appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 1622-SB of 2003) Mr. S.S.Rangi, Advocate for the appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 1759-SB of 2003) Mr. Suveer Sheokand,Advocate for the appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 2020-SB of 2003) Mr. B.S.Sra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab S. D. ANAND, J. These four appeals have an element of commonness because all these are directed against the conviction of appellants ( Kulwinder Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 1452-SB of 2003, Bagga Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 1622-SB of 2003, Prem Singh and Daljit Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 1452-SB of 2003 and Joginder Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 2020-SB of 2003) at the hands of the learned Trial Judge (in case FIR No. 428 dated 26.10.2001, under Sections 399/402 IPC, Police Station, Patran.) Learned Trial Judge upheld the prosecution allegations that the appellants were found together at the place of apprehension when they were carrying indicated weaponry and they were making preparation to commit dacoity. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the appellants were not independently prosecuted for possession of weapons ( a spring actuated knife, a country made point 315 bore pistol with cartridges and an air pistol. The police party, which acted on the basis of a secret information consisted of a number of police officials, out of whom Criminal Appeal No.1452-SB of 2003 -3- **** PW-2 Tarun Rattan (the then SHO) and PW-3 ASI Gurdev Singh were examined at the trial. The only independent witness namely Jagtar Singh was given up as having been won over by the appellants. I have heard Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. B.S.Sra, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of the State. After having been through the statements of PW-2 Tarun Rattan and PW-3 ASI Gurdev Singh, I called upon the learned State counsel to precisely indicate any evidence available on the file on the basis whereof it could be held that the appellants were making preparation to commit dacoity. Learned State counsel conceded before the Court that he was not in a position to invite the attention of the Court to any evidence in the relevant behalf. On factual front, it may be noticed that all that PW-2 Tarun Rattan and PW-3 ASI Gurdev Singh testified at the trial was that the appellants were found available at the place of apprehension while they were carrying the indicated weaponry. There is not a word in the prosecution evidence beyond that to nail the appellants. Mere presence at odd hours of the night cannot be held to be sufficient to warrant the conviction of those apprehended over there. Likewise, the conceded position that no independent prosecution against those possessing indicated weaponry had been lodged also dilutes the bonafides of the prosecution presentation, particularly when it is in the FIR itself that the Investigating Officer had directed ASI Joginder Criminal Appeal No.1452-SB of 2003 -4- **** Singh to initiate legal proceedings against those found in possession of one spring actuated knife, one country made pistol point 315 bore and cartridges and one air pistol. The present is, thus, being a case of complete want of evidence to nail the appellants on a charge of having been apprehended while making preparation to commit dacoity. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the impugned finding of conviction is found to be unsustainable. The appeals shall stand allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction is set aside. The appellants shall stand acquitted of the charge. August 12, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE