"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
Act.
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
