My photo




Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Secs.399 , 402 I.P.C. and sec.25 of Arms Act - Acquitted - when the High court felt that there is exaggeration and padding on the part of Investigation Officer and when at the time of alleged recovery of fire arm absence of independent witness and when arrest or recovery not in the presence of any Gazetted Officer and when the Complainant (PW-6) has himself investigated the crime and when the accused who are armed with deadly weapon with blue uniform shirt for dacoity on the liquor shop and when neither of them offered any resistance nor caused any injury to any of the police personnel - the accused is entitled for Benefit of doubt - Lower courts committed wrong- allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant - 2015 SC msklawreports


"The statement of ASI Sube Singh and H.C. Ram Singh cannot  be  believed  to
the effect that they  had  over  heard  the  conversation  of  the  accused,
details of which are given above to show that the  accused  were  discussing
their plan in detail to commit dacoity  on  the  liquor  shop,  situated  at
Meerut Road, Karnal.  It is apparently exaggeration and padding on the  part
of Investigating Officer."

Strangely, even after observing as above, the High Court  has  believed  the
prosecution story in respect of offences punishable under Sections  399  and
402 IPC, and one in respect of offence punishable under Section 25  of  Arms
The High Court has erred in law in not taking note  of  the  following
facts apparent from the evidence on record: -

In a day light incident at 1.20  p.m.  within  the  limits  of  City  Police
Station, Karnal, there is no public or any other independent witness of  the
arrest of the appellant along with other accused from the place of  incident
nor that of the alleged recovery of fire arm said to  have  been  made  from
two of them.
(It is not a case where arrest or recovery has  been  made  in
the presence of any Gazetted Officer.)

Complainant  (PW-6)  has  himself  investigated  the  crime,  as  such,  the
credibility of the investigation is  also  doubtful  in  the  present  case,
particularly, for the reason that except  the  police  constables,  who  are
subordinate to him, there is no other witness to the incident.

It is not natural that the six accused, four of whom were armed with  deadly
weapons, neither offered any resistance nor caused any injury to any of  the
police personnel before they are apprehended by the police.

It is strange that all the accused were wearing blue  shirts,  as  if  there
was a uniform provided to them.

It is hard to believe that the appellant and three others  did  not  try  to
run away as at the time of the noon they must have  easily  noticed  from  a
considerable distance that some policemen are coming towards them.   (It  is
not the case of the prosecution that police personnel were not in uniform.)

In view of the above facts and circumstances, which are  apparent  from  the
evidence on record, we find that both the courts below have erred in law  in
holding that the prosecution has  successfully  proved  charge  of  offences
punishable under Sections 399 and 402 IPC, and one punishable under  Section
25 of Arms Act against appellant  Jasbir  Singh  @  Javri  @  Jabbar  Singh,
beyond reasonable doubt.  In our  opinion,  it  is  a  fit  case  where  the
appellant is entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt,  and  deserves
to be acquitted.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.  The Conviction  and  sentence  recorded
against appellant Jasbir Singh @ Javri @ Jabbar  Singh  under  Sections  399
and 402 IPC and one punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act, is  hereby  set
aside.  The appellant shall  be  released  forthwith,  if  not  required  in
connection with any other trial. - 2015 SC msk law reports


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.