Hem Singh @ Hemu vs State Of Haryana

3. The prosecution case is as under.

During the night intervening 24/25.12.1999, Inspector Kuldeep Singh (P.W.10) received a secret information that the accused Sattey (since deceased), Sunil, Vinod, Hemu (appellants herein) and one Pappu @ Lilu (absconding) of U.P. (said to be dacoits), would be coming to Lakarpur. On the basis of the said information, Inspector Kuldeep Singh deputed ASI Randhir Singh (P.W.3), Constable Ramesh Kumar (P.W.2) and Constable Lasker Singh (deceased) to the said village in civil cloths. Allegedly, on recognizing the policemen, accused persons opened fire and a gun battle ensued between them. Accused Sattey alias Satender received a gun shot injury. He died on the spot. Other accused persons were said to have fled away. Constables Ramesh Kumar (P.W.2) and Lasker Singh chased them. While the exchange of fire was going on, Lasker Singh received a gunshot injury. He also died on the spot. P.W. 2 also received a gunshot injury. 3

On the same day, i.e. on 25.12.1999, P.W. 10 prepared a site plan in which the name of the appellant - Hemu was not mentioned.

Indisputably, Hemu was arrested on 6.1.2000 by Inspector Palvinder Singh (P.W. 17) while he was riding on a red Yamha Motorcycle. Allegedly, a pistol was recovered from him. A case under Section 302, 185, 353 IPC and 27 Arms Act had been registered against him being FIR No. 4 of 2000 at P.S Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. A disclosure statement of Hemu was recorded on or about 6.1.2000. It is alleged that Hemu was forced to admit 4 his involvement in the present case and the said disclosure statement was obtained by undue influence and coercion at the hands of police.

Indisputably, another disclosure statement of Hemu while he was in police custody on 2.2.2000 was recorded wherein it was mentioned that the Hemu and Lilu had fired at Constable Lasker Singh who had died. A case under Arms Act was initiated against him. He was acquitted in the aforesaid case by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Appeal No. 101 of 2001 holding that the alleged firearm was not in a working order and the same could not have been used.

The postmortem was conducted on the bodies of Constable Lasker Singh and accused Sattey. The Postmortem reports were submitted and the recovered articles were taken in custody and a memo therefor was prepared.

Appellants herein admittedly were not known to the police officers. Only Sattey was known to them. P.W.1 - Anoop Singh in his deposition categorically admitted that he did not know the assailants previously. After 9 their arrest, no identification parade test was held. Although the first informant as also witnesses in their depositions proceeded on the basis that all the accused had been coming in a Maruti Car and they were heavily armed, no arm was recovered from any of them.

11. As indicated hereinbefore, appellants were not known to the police officers; they were not involved in any other case. In fact, so far as the Hemu is concerned, no case at the relevant time was pending against him. Only because Sattey allegedly called them by their names, which appears to be wholly unlikely, they could not have been identified particularly in view of the fact that the incident had taken place in an isolated area and that too on a dark night.

14. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be upheld. The appeals are allowed. The appellants are directed to be set at liberty unless wanted in connection with any other case.

May 06, 2009