State Of Punjab vs Hans Raj

2.1 As per the prosecution story on 22nd January, 1996 at about 30 minutes past mid night, Paramjit Singh, Conductor CRL. A. NO. 1667 OF 2007 2 No. 45 was on night duty at the Bus Stand Muktsar. He called Shri Jagdip Singh, General Mananger, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar and informed him that some noise was coming out of the office and that Hans Raj, a Gun Man, employed for security purposes, was lying in the office in an injured condition whereas Sukchain Singh, Conductor No. 24 was lying dead. This information was conveyed to the police on telephone by Shri Jagdip Singh on which the police came to the Depot and found the dead body of Sukchain Singh lying in the office and Hans Raj respondent lying seriously injured. It was also noticed that the locks of the cash box had been broken and the safe was also in a damaged condition. An inventory revealed that an amount of Rs. 5,61,704/- had been stolen from the cash room. On enquiry, the respondent informed the police that some unknown persons had fired at him and Sukchain Singh. A First Information Report against unknown persons was, accordingly, recorded. The inspection of the murder site also led to the recovery of one fired cartridge case of 12 bore shot gun and two live cartridges. The respondent, was interrogated on 29.2.1996 as he was under suspicion by Inspector Ashwani Kumar on which he made an disclosure statement which led to the recovery of Rs. 4,42,730/- and on a further interrogation on 2nd March, 1996 another sum of Rs. 1,14,800/- was also recovered. He was, accordingly, CRL. A. NO. 1667 OF 2007 3 arrested and ultimately brought to trial for the offences aforementioned.

2.2 The prosecution relied primarily on the statement of P.W. 6, Conductor Paramjit Singh, who claimed to have been an eye witness to the incident and also sought corroboration from the fact that a sum of more than Rs.5,50,000/- had been recovered at the instance of the accused respondent and that the cartridge recovered from the spot had been matched with the murder weapon, i.e. the gun given to the respondent in his capacity as a guard in the office. The Sessions Judge, accordingly, convicted him accused as already indicated above.

2.3 An appeal was, thereafter taken to the High Court and the High Court has, by impugned judgment, allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondent. Several points have been noted by the High Court, they being:

(ii) that the disclosure statement had been recorded on 29th February, 1996 and 2nd March, 1996 whereas CRL. A. NO. 1667 OF 2007 4 the FIR had been recorded on 3rd March, 1996 which indicated that no recovery had in fact been made pursuant to the statements and could not be taken into account in any case;

For these reasons, the High Court found that the story did not inspire confidence.

4. We are, therefore, of the opinion that merely because the recovery of cash had been made allegedly at the instance of the respondent is itself in doubt for the additional reason that the FIR had been recorded long after the date of the disclosure statements. We thus find that there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly, dismissed.

........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI] ........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD] NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 08, 2010.