State of Haryana vs Satyawan and Others

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present petition and emanating from the record, is that originally, a criminal case was registered against the Respondents-accused, vide FIR No. 40 dated 2.2.2008 on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act by the police of Police Station Narnaund, District Hisar.

Having completed all the codal formalities and on ultimate analysis of the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted all the Respondents-accused, by virtue of impugned judgment of acquittal dated 1.2.2010.

The State of Haryana did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgment of the trial Court and filed the present petition for leave to appeal. That is how I am seized of the matter.

Having heard the learned State counsel, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this respect.

As is evident from the record that the trial Judge acquitted all the Respondents-accused, vide impugned judgment of acquittal, the operative part of which is as under:

Accused suffered their disclosure statement when they were already in police custody. This fact has been admitted by Naresh Kumar SI, in his cross-examination, while stepping into witness box. On the basis of disclosure statement, suffered by the accused Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, are not admissible into evidence. Nothing was recovered in consequence of these disclosure statements. Naresh Kumar SI, in his cross-examination, at page No. 4 admitted, he had not reduced the secret information into writing for the purpose to inform to senior officers. He also admitted the place of occurrence was also known to him before pointing out by Sandeep son of Dalbir and Kuldeep son of Atma Ram. He also admitted the second raiding party was present on the site of factory but in site plan Ex.P.26, the presence of one raiding party only has been shown. This fact also makes the story of prosecution doubtful. He also admitted at the time of raiding, there was no source of light and it was complete darkness at the spot. When there was no source of light, then, identifying of accused by the police party is again doubtful. He also admitted the factory was having many rooms but none of the rooms has been shown in the site plan Ex.P.26 and at the time of hearing of conversation of the accused, he had not been seen by the accused. When a question was put to him, at how much distance was the police party and the accused, he failed to answer and he candidly admitted due to darkness, the faces of the accused were not identified. When a question was put to him, how the accused was apprehended by him and which of the accused ran in which direction, he failed to give proper explanation and answered, he apprehended the accused Satyawan and cannot tell about each and every accused, who ran in which direction. He admitted the place of occurrence is in busy locality. Even then, he did not try to join any independent witness in the investigation, but in rukka Ex.P.30, he stated he made every effort to join person from the general public. He also admitted the secret informer, had not told him about having double barrel gun by one of the accused. Whereas in docket Ex.P30, Naresh Kumar SI, clearly gave the description of weapon in the possession of the accused. He also admitted when the police reached at the spot, there was complete silent whereas in docket Ex.P.30, he had heard the conversation amongst the accused. When another question was put to him whether the accused were inside the room or outside the room of the factory, he failed to answer. He also admitted accused, who had ran away from the site were not identified by the police party because it was darkness.

Naresh Kumar SI stated the police party was in possession of two police jeeps whereas Sadhu Ram, stated that one of the jeep was private jeep. It has also been admitted by Naresh Kumar SI, PW-5 and Sadhu Ram ASI PW-6, that factory, in which accused were sitting was having boundary wall. The factory was having boundary wall and it was cordon off by the police party, which were having ten members. Then, escaping of two persons in such like circumstances, makes the story of prosecution doubtful. PW-6 Sadhu Ram ASI, in his cross- examination admitted from the side where the police party headed by him, entered, there was no grill or window to hear the conversation amongst the accused. The accused were not visible to him as well as to the party headed by him. However, police party headed by Naresh Kumar SI, saw them and on pointing out of Naresh Kumar SI, they proceeded ahead. Whereas according to Naresh Kumar SI, all the police officials simply cordon off the factory premises. Sadhu Ram PW-6 also admitted, the factory was having one gate only. All the accused were inside the factory. Naresh Kumar SI alongwith his party, was standing at main gate of the factory whereas it has not come in the statement of Naresh Kumar SI that he entered in the factory from the main gate. The evidence on record is self contradictory. In this way, what ever the evidence has been adduced on record by the prosecution, it does not inspire any confidence in the mind of the court, rather, evidence of the prosecution, is self contradictory, as the version of the prosecution witnesses is infested with flagrant discrepancies and highly improbable. Evaluating the prosecution evidence on record, considering the totality of circumstances, it lacks co-herence. There is not an iota of evidence, against any of the accused, to maintain charge u/s 399 and 402 IPC. All the accused who are facing trial are acquitted of the charge u/s 399 and 402 IPC.

Meaning thereby, the trial Judge has recorded the valid grounds/reasons in acquitting the accused. Such well articulated impugned judgment containing valid reasons of acquittal cannot legally be interfered with in these proceedings, unless the same is perverse or without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned judgment of acquittal by the learned State counsel.

No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned State counsel.

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed, culminating into the dismissal of appeal as well.