Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 2780
DELHI HIGH COURT
Mukta Gupta, J.
Satish Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State - Resopndent
Crl. Appeal No. 125 of 2000 and Crl. M.B. No. 772 of 2011 & Crl. Appeal No. 187 of 2000 and Crl. M.B. Nos. 81 of 2011, 1642 of 2011 and 315 of 2012
Decided On : 16-07-2012
For the Appellant : Mr. Mukesh Kalia, Ad#31;vocate.
For the Appellant :Mr. Prag Chawla , Mr. Saurabh Shokeen, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP with SI Pradeep Jain, PS Kashmere Gate.
The main legal point established is the requirement for corroboration of evidence, especially when relying solely on the testimony of police witnesses, and the need for caution in such cases.
Headnote:
IPC - Criminal Law - Section 392, Section 506, Section 34, Section 397, Section 25, Section 27 - The judgment discusses the convictions of the appellants under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. It highlights the prosecution's case, the testimonies of the witnesses, and the contradictions in their statements. The court emphasizes the need for corroboration of evidence and the caution required when relying solely on the testimony of police witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the appellants committed robbery and related offenses against a constable. The constable identified the appellants and testified about the incident. However, the defense argued that the prosecution's case lacked clear evidence and was based on the testimony of police witnesses only.
Finding of the Court:
The court found contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, especially the constable. It emphasized the need for corroboration of evidence and caution when relying solely on the testimony of police witnesses.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the lack of independent witnesses, and the contradictions in the testimonies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for corroboration of evidence, especially when relying solely on the testimony of police witnesses. It highlighted the material contradictions in the prosecution's case and the lack of independent witnesses.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges. The court directed the release of the appellant in custody and discharged the bail bond and surety bond of the other appellant.
Mukta Gupta, J.;—
1. The present appeals are directed against the judgment and order on sentence dated 21st February, 2000 and 2nd March, 2000 respectively. Vide judgment dated 21st February, 2000 the Appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Section 392/506/34 IPC. The Appellant Surender and one Banwari Lal were also convicted for offences punishable under Section 397 IPC & under Section 25/27 Arms Act. Vide order dated 2nd March, 2000 the Appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years for offences punishable under Section 392/34 IPC. Appellant Surender and Banwari Lal were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for offences punishable under Section 397 IPC. For offences punishable under Section 25/27 Arms Act, the Appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
2. Briefly the prosecution case is that on 25.4.1995 SI Sunil Kumar along with SI Dinesh Kumar, HC Chander Bhan, Ct. Preet Singh Ct. Jaivir and Ct. Rajinder Singh were present on patrolling duty and reached Mori Gate, School Road at about 11:35 am. They found one person whose name and address was subsequently disclosed as Nagar Singh, Constable, posted at Old Delhi Railway Station, raising alarm ‘Pakdo Pakdo? and was following three persons. SI Sunil Kumar with the assistance of his fellow Police Officials apprehended Satish Kumar alias Pappu son of Nathi Ram, R/o B-113, Majlis Park, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi, Surender Singh, S/o Nanak Chand, R/o of H.No.22, Gali Sheikhpura, Mandi Ghanta Ghar, Meerut, U.P. and Banwari Lal S/o Sh. Manohar Lal, r/o A-449, Gali No.8, Daak Khana Wali Gali, Usmanpur, Delhi after following them on the other corner of Saint Stephen College Ground towards Boulevard Road Delhi, and recovered a ‘Mahroon? colour purse from the hands of Satish Kumar which contained a cash amount of Rs.4000/- in the denomination of Rs.100/- currency notes, summons in the name of Nagar Singh Constable issued from the Court of Shri M.L.Sahni, for his appearance on 27th April, 1995, which were identified by Nagar Singh as his money and summons and that the said three persons were escaping after having snatched the same from him. During the personal search of the accused Surender Singh, a buttondar knife was recovered from the right pocket of the pant which measured 13.25” having red and green circles on it. A dagger was recovered from the personal search of Banwari Lal. The knife and dagger were taken into possession through memos and were sealed.
3. Nagar Singh made a statement to the abovenamed SI that he was posted at Old Delhi Railway Station as a constable and on that day after doing his night duty, he was going towards Mori Gate, Delhi. At about 11.35 a.m. when he reached near the Advocates Parking situated near Mori Gate Chambers, all of a sudden three boys, whose names were subsequently disclosed as Satish Kumar, Surender Singh and Banwari Lal, stopped him and Surender Singh took out a knife and kept it on his chest and in the meanwhile Banwari Lal also took out another knife and kept it on his neck while Satish Kumar caught hold of him and took out his purse from his dub pocket containing 40 currency notes of Rs.100/- each and his summons for appearance in Court on 27th April, 1995 and threatened him that if he raised alarm, his stomach will be torn and they escaped towards St. Stephen College ground. He raised alarm “Pakdo Pakdo? and in the meanwhile the police party reached there during patrolling duty, followed the offenders and arrested them. On the basis of this statement of Nagar Singh, FIR No. 245/95 under Sections 392/506/34/397 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act was registered at PS Kashmere Gate against all the above named three accused persons. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. After recording the statement of prosecution witnesses and statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., l
