Puran alias Ranbir alias Dhuria vs State of Haryana

Surinder Singh, J.—This judgment will dispose of seven Criminal Apopeals which are all connected.

Criminal Appeal No.9SB of 1984 has been filed by Puran alias Ranbir alias Dhuria and Bhure son of Roshan against their conviction and sentence ordered by the Additional Sessions Judge (II), Faridabad, as follows:

(a) under section 395, Indian Penal Code, read with section 397, Indian Penal Code, to ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/ each in default of payment of fine to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month each;

(b) under section 148, Indian Penal Code, to one year''s Rigorous Imprisonment each;

(c) under section 307, Indian Penal Code, read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/, in default of payment of fine to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month each.

The substantive sentences as above to run concurrentlhy.

Criminal ASppeal No. 101 SB of 1984 has been filed by (1) Nawab (2) Jalal, sons of Roshan, (3) Udeyvir son of Shiv Chand and (4) Panna son of Lila Dhar against their conviction and sentences ordered by the Additional Sessions Judge (II), Faridabad, as follows:

(a) under section 395, Indian Penal Code, read with section 397, Indian Penal Code, to ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/ each, in default of payment of fine to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month each;

(b) under section 148, Indian Penal Code, to one year''s Rigorous Imprisonment for one month each;

(c) under section 307, Indian Penal Code, read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, to seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/ each, in default of payment of fine to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month eachy.

The substantive sentences as above to run concurrently.

Criminal Appeals Nos. 102SB, 103SB, 117SB, 189SB and 190SB, all of 1984 have been filed by Nawab, Puran, Panna, Bhure and Udeyvir against their conviction and sentence ordered by the Additional Sessions judge (II), Faridabad, under section 25 of the Arms Act in separate trials, for which offence each of the appellants was sentenced to one year''s Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/, in default of payment of fine to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month each.

The substantive sentences awarded in these appeals were ordered to run concurrently with the sentence awarded to each appellant u/ss.305/397, 148 and 307/149, IPC.

The prosecution allegations in regard to the occurrence in question are these. Mukat Lal (P.W.8) Sarpanch of Village Dakota is the first informant in the main case. According to him, he slept in his baithak on the night intervening November 24/25, 1983 after closing the door of the baithak from inside. However, he forgot to bolt the same. At about 2/2.30 a.m., the door of the baithak was opened. Five persons entered the baithak while armed with guns, pistol and knife. A godrej Almirah was lying in the room. The intruders demanded the keys of the Godrej Almirah from Mukat Lal. Mukat Lal told them that the keys were not with him. The indtruders then broke open the Almirah. The intruders removed a ring a purse containing a receipt of Rs. 5000/ and cash amounting to Rs. 200/ and a Radio belonging to the Panchayat. According to the witness, five or seven persons were standing outside the baithak and these persons started firing shots. The intruders who had come inside the room, the went outside and also fired some shots. Thereafter all of them ran away towards the jungle. Some villagers are said to have chased the dacoits. Mukat Lal went to Police Station on a motorcycle and lodged the First Information Report, Exhibit PB.

The second part of the occurrence is narrated by Nathi (P.W.6) and Dal Chand (P.W.7) who had been attracted to the spot on hearing the noise of the gunshots. According to these witnesses, the assailants were ten or eleven in number, out of whom two or three were emptyhanded, while six of them were holding guns in their hands. The other two had countrymade pistols. The emptyhanded persons are said to be holding torches and one of them had a knife. After Mukal Lal left for making a report to the Police, the abovementioned two winesses and some other persons pursued the dacoits up to Bus Stand Banchari. Meanwhile, two Police officials. This vehicle went towards Sewli. The other vehicle followed them. After they had covered a distance of about half a mile from Mundkati Chowk, both the vehicles were stopped and parked there. All the persons then started on foot towards the drain and reaching there, they heard a sound of some foot steps. When the Inspector shouted a challenge, firing started from the other side. A berrolight pistol was fired in the air to illuminate the area and in this light the witnesses claim to have seen eleven persons firing at the Police Party. The Police Party also fired in return. When a second berrolight pistol was fired, the other party of the Police officials was found coming from behind the place where the culprits were firing. The Inspector then shouted a warning to the culprits that they had been surrounded and that they should surrender, which they did. The eleven persons were then apprehended and from their person a number of arms were recovered, details whereof need not be mentioned, as the same have been noticed in the judgment of the trial Court.

In consequence of their trial, five of the accused, namely. Bhanwar Singh, Man Singh, Raju, Khichu and Girraj were acquitted, while the remaining were convicted an d sentenced, as already noticed.

With the aid of the learned counsel for the appellants, I have been taken through the evidence on the record of all these cases. The learned counsel has also drawn my attention to judgment of the trial Court with a view to highlight the fact that a material and substantial part of the prosecution case has been disbeleved by the trial Court. This indeed is so. While discussing the casse of the acquitted accused, the learned trial Court observed several times that Mukat Lal (P.W.8) had given the discreption of six dacoits to the Police and could not give the description of the remaining five dacoits. The question of identity of the assailants was an important factor in the present case, but the same has not been given due importance. If we peruse the First Information Report of Mukat Lal, we find that the socalled description of some of the accused is hardly of any utility for the purpose of identification. To say that some of the dacoits were tall and others of medium height, is neither here nor there. In the present case, it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to arrange an Identification Parade for the identification of all the accused by the eyewitnesses, but there is nothing on record to show that this was done. The mere identification of the accused in the Court, at the time of their trial, does not serve the purpose. In the absence of proper identification of the appellants case against them becomes highly doubtful.

In regard to certain other pieces of evidence produced by the prosecution to connect the accused with the occurrence, the trial Court observed that the recovery of eleven Railway Tickets from the person of Man Singh was a faked one. In regard to Girraj accused, the trial Court observed that if he was a member of the party which was interpreted at the time of the encounter, he would not have been carrying only a torch instead of some suitable weapon. The recovery of the dagger Exhibit P23 from Raju accused was also disbelieved. In the observations regarding the case of Khichu, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II) pointedly noticed that the recovery of the Radio, tied up in the chaddar was not genuine and it could not believed that this accused would carry the Radio with him on his shoulder waiting for the arrival of the Police. An important factor which weighed with the trial Court in acquitting five of the accused, was that by producing defence evidence these accused had proved that they had actually been arrested earlier than November 25, 1982 on which date they are shown to have been apprehended in consequence of the encounter. If the prosecution is able to go to the extent of not only implicating five innocent persons but even planting a large number of arms and other items to connect them with the present case, there is no guarantee that the present appellants were not dealt with in the same manner. It was held in Satbir v. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 S.C. 2074, that if an important part of the prosecution story is not believed then it would be difficult to accept the other part without doing damage to the doctrine of benefit of doubt. These observations directly applicable to the case in hand.

In view of these circumstances, the case against the appellants does not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt and they are entitled to the benefit of this doubt.

In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 9SB and Criminal Appeal No. 101SB of 1984 pertain to the recovery of certain arms from the respective appellants. The recovery having been found doubtful, in the main case, the appellants are also entitled to the benefit of this doubt in these cases. The appeals are consequently accepted and the appellants are ordered to be acquitted of the charge under section 25 of the Armas Act framed against each of them for which they were tried separately. The appellants shall be released, if they are confined in connection with these cases.