Mohinder Singh vs State of Haryana

A.S. Nehra, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17/1819 1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Karnal by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 50/ and in default of payment of fine to further imprisonment for 15 days.

Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are as under :

On 7.3.1990 Sub Inspector Badan Singh arrested the accused from the road which leads to village Bassi from village Sarafli in a murder case F.I.R. No. 111 dated 4.3.1990, Police Station Assandh. On interrogation in the presence of Dalip Singh and Makhan Singh, the accused made disclosure statement Ex.PF that he had kept concealed one barchha in his field under the heap of Toria and that he could get the same recovered. This disclosure statement was reduced into writing which was signed by the accused and attested by Dalip Singh and Makhan Singh. Then the accused led the police party to the above place and got recovered barchha Ex. P1 from underneath the heap of Toria. Sub Inspector Badan Singh then prepared rough sketch Ex.PC/1 of the barchha and took the same into possession in a sealed parcel vide recovery memo Ex.PC/2. Then S.I. Badan Singh sent ruqa to the police station for registration of case under the Arms Act against the accused.

In support of its case, prosecution has examined Head Constable Chander Singh, PW1, Constable Ved Parkash PW2, Makhan Singh, PW3 and S.I. Badan Singh, PW4.

In order to prove the recovery of barchha Ex. P1 from the possession of the accused, the prosecution has examined Makhan Singh, PW3 and S.I. Badan Singh PW4. SI Badan Singh PW4 is the Investigating Officer of the case and he has stated that on 7.3.1990 he arrested the accused from the road which leads to village Bassi from village Kheri Sharafli; that on interrogation the accused made disclosure statement that he had kept concealed barchha under the heap of Toria lying in his field and he could get the same recovered, that disclosure statement was attested by Dalip Singh and Makhan Singh and was signed by the accused and that then in pursuance of this disclosure statement, the accused got recovered barchha from the above place which was taken into possession in a sealed parcel; Makhan Singh, PW3 has also deposed to the same effect. Makhan Singh and S.I. Badan Singh witnesses were crossexamined at great length. Makhan Singh son of Surjan Singh is resident of village Babari. He stated that on 7.3.1990 at about 9.15 a.m. he and Dalip Singh were standing with the police party at Bus Stop Kheri Sharaf Ali when SI Badan Singh received some secret information against the whereabouts of the accused through a secret informer; that on the receipt of this information both of them were joined by the police and they proceeded towards the school where the accused was seen standing, that the police party arrested the accused and interrogated him and during the course of interrogation he made a disclosure statement to the effect that he had kept concealed a barchha in his fields under the heap of toria and could get the same recovered. During crossexamination, he has admitted that Kirpal Singh, father of Mohinder Singh deceased, is his fatherinlaw; that his village is about 60 kms. from village Kheri Sharaf Ali; that he has not seen the fields of the accused from where the barchha is alleged to have been recovered earlier to the occurrence and that he could not tell the owners of the adjoining fields.

Badan Singh PW4 stated in his crossexamination on that the accused did not try to escape nor he offered any resistance at the time of his apprehension and the accused made disclosure statement after about 23 minutes of his apprehension; that the accused had made the statement in Hindi; that the place of recovery might be at a distance of 4 kms from the place of his arrest; that wheat crop was standing in the fields from where the barchha was recovered and that the barchha was lying concealed in the heap of toria straw.

The evidence of Makhan singh PW3 and Badan Singh PW4 does not inspire confidence, because both of them are interested in securing the conviction of the accused. Apart from that the alleged recovery has been effected from an open place accessible to all. It would thus be not safe to rely upon the alleged recovery which seems to have been foisted in order to strengthen the main case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant.

In view of the above, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge.