Dalip Singh vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J. (Oral)

Shri Dalip Singh son of Shri Bacha Singh son of Shri Sher Singh, a young boy of 24 years at the time of his conviction, has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment dated 11.10.1994 and order dated 12.10.1994 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad, who convicted the appellant under Section 393 read with Section 398 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ under this section. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo R.I. for one year.

The prosecution case as unfolded in application Ex.PB of complainant Vinish Aggarwal and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of other witnesses is that the complainant was residing in house No. 338, Sector 16A, Faridabad. On 14.5.1993 he and his elder brother Sanjay Aggarwal were present on their shop situated in Nehru Ground, NIT Faridabad. Smt. Meenu, wife of Sanjay Aggarwal and their daughter Priyanka were also residing in the same house. At about noon time Smt. Meenu Aggarwal and Kumari Priyanka were present in the house. Appellant Dalip Singh armed with a pistol entered the house and tried to loot jewellery and cash as pistol point threatening the life of Priyanka. Noise was raised which attracted the neighbours and passersby. Appellant went through the door and he was caught redhanded by the persons who collected there. Smt. Meenu Aggarwal informed the complainant on telephone. He and his brother Sanjay Aggarwal immediately reached the house on a twowheeler and found that appellant Dalip Singh had been overpowered by the neighbours including Rajiv Aggarwal. Appellant was holding a pistol. Police was informed and a police party headed by ASI Om Parkash came to the house. The pistol was recovered from the appellant. Some cartridges were also recovered. Appellant had fired a shot from the pistol before being caught hold by the neighbours. The pistol and cartridges were taken into possession by the police after preparing the sketch of the pistol. Application Ex.PB was made at the spot to ASI Om Parkash and it was sent to the police station along with endorsement Ex.PB/1 of the Investigating Officer, on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Ex.PA was recorded by SI Raghbir Singh. Appellant could not produce any licence or permit for the possession of pistol and the ammunition. Therefore, a separate case under Section 25 of the Arms Act was also registered. On completion of the investigation of the case, appellant was challaned in the court of Area Magistrate under Section 393 read with Section 398 IPC. The learned Magistrate supplied the copies of the documents to the appellant and vide commitment order dated 15.10.1993 committed the appellant to the Court of Session in order to face the trial.

Vide orders dated 17.11.1993 the appellant was chargesheeted under section 393 read with section 398 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined seven witnesses namely Constable Rajinder Singh PW1, Inspector Abhay Singh PW2, Smt. Meenu Aggarwal PW3, Vinish Aggarwal PW4, ASI Om Parkash PW5, Sohal Lal, draftsman PW6 and Ravi Talwar PW7.

On the closure of prosecution evidence, statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to him. Appellant denied those circumstances and stated that a false case has been planted. He further stated that he used to take his infant son to a park situated near his house. The children of the complainant also used to play there. A servant of the complainant was with complainant''s children. A quarrel took place regarding children between him and that servant and the complainant got him falsely implicated in this case because he had given slaps to the servant of the complainant one month prior to the registration of this case.

When called upon to enter into defence, the appellant did not lead any evidence.

The learned trial Court relied the story of the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above and aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the present appeal.

I have heard Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate on behalf of the appellant, Mr. J.S. Ahlawat, Advocate on behalf of the State and with their assistance I have also gone through the record of this case.

Smt. Meenu Aggarwal while appearing as PW3 deposed as follows :

"On 14.5.1993 at about 11.45 a.m. before noon, I was present in my said house. My daughter aged about 2 years named Priyanka was with me. No other member of our family was present in the house at that time. Accused present in court entered our house. He was holding a pistol in his hand and after entering the house be bolted the door from inside. He pointed the pistol towards the temple of my daughter and asked me to hand over ornaments and whatever valuable I had to him. I started raising noise. Accused present in dock is same person. He gave me a slap. I shrieked at a loud voice. Several persons gathered outside the door of our house. They also raised noise. Accused got perplexed. He opened the door and after going out of it, he fired a shot from pistol in air. Sh. Ravi Talwar, a neighbour of ours was also among the persons who had collected there. Said Shri Ravi Talwar and some others who had collected caught hold the accused and overpowered him. I rang up my husband Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal and his younger brother Sh. Vinish Aggarwal. They were at their shop in Nehru Ground, Faridabad. After ten minutes both of them reached our house. I told the whole occurrence to them. The police was informed and police actually came to the spot, and the accused was handed over to the police at the spot. He was arrested."

PW4 Vinish Aggarwal stated as follows :

"I received telephonic message from Meenu Aggarwal that one culprit armed with pistol entered the house and tried to loot jewellery and cash at pistol point, threatening the life of Priyanka. She told that she had raised noise which attracted a crowd of neighbours and passersby and culprit had gone out of the door and was apprehended by the crowd. I and my brother immediately reached our house and found that accused Dalip Singh who is present in dock in custody had been overpowered by the neighbours. Rajiv Aggarwal was also among the crowd. He had caught told the pistol from accused. A telephone call was made to Central Faridabad Police Station. Fivesix police officials headed by Om Parkash ASI came to our house. The pistol was recovered and some cartridges were also recovered from said accused. Accused had fired a shot after coming out of the door. The shot was fired by him in the air."

Ravi Talwar, PW7, deposed as under :

"At about 11.45 a.m. before noon, we heard a big noise and people were crying PakroPakro. I came out of my office and ran after Dalip Singh, who is now present in the court as accused. He was running and he was chased by many persons. I also gave him a chase. Before coming out of my office, I had heard the sound of a gun shot being fired from direction of neighbouring house of Shri Aggarwal. But I did not see any fire arm when I chased the accused. The accused was caught, police came there after being informed on telephone. The accused was handed over to police and a pistol was recovered from him."

The statements of above three witnesses would show that Dalip Singh appellant tried to commit robbery inside the house of Smt. Meenu Aggarwal and he used a deadly weapon. The conduct of Smt. Meenu Aggarwal was very natural. She raised alarm which attracted the neighbours and passersby. The appellant was apprehended at the spot with the fire arm. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the statements of these three witnesses by stating that the story of the prosecution is full of improbabilities. But I am not in a position to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. Smt. Meenu Aggarwal, her Devar Vinish Aggarwal and Ravi Talwar would be the last persons to implicate Dalip Singh in such a drastic occurrence. The arrest of the appellant at the spot with the firearm lends corroboration to the story of the prosecution. I have scrutinised their evidence and do not find any discrepancy in the same so as to rule out that the story of the prosecution was false in any material particular.

The learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that to obtain a written complaint from Vinish Aggarwal was an act of improbability. I do not see any merit in this argument. Rather this shows the genuineness of the story. In this case the occurrence was mainly witnessed by Smt. Meenu Aggarwal. Her conduct was very much normal. She raised alarm for her safety which attracted the neighbours and the passersby and in these circumstances the natural conduct of the neighbours would be to rush to the place of occurrence and try to save the victim and to catch hold of the culprit. A courage has been shown by the neighbours including Ravi Talwar and with the timely intervention of the passersby and the neighbours, the appellant was arrested at the spot. In these circumstances the question of identity of the appellant does not arise. It was very natural on the part of the Investigating Officer to obtain a written complaint from the complainant Vinish Aggarwal about the occurrence. All the three witnesses have consistently deposed that the appellant attempted to commit robbery and he was armed with deadly weapon like pistol. The recovery of pistol and ammunition is suggestive of the fact that the appellant attempted to commit robbery in the house of Smt. Meenu Aggarwal and therefore he has been rightly convicted under Section 393 read with Section 398 IPC.

No concession can be shown to the appellant in the matter of sentence because of his conviction under Section 398 IPC. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed.