1986 Supreme(Raj) 824
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
I.S.Israni, J.
Bakshi & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State - Respondent
S.B. Cr. (J) Appeal No. 518 of 1985 (Against the judgment passed by A.S.J., Gangapur city dated 30-10-85 in Ss Case No. 53 of 84.).
Decided On : 3-12-1986
The evidence of police witnesses can be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, provided that it is corroborated by other evidence. A person who is convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years and who is not a previous convict is eligible for probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - CONVICTION FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 399, 402 IPC AND 3/25 OF THE ARMS ACT - EVIDENCE OF POLICE WITNESSES - INDEPENDENT WITNESS - RELIABILITY - PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT, 1958 - SECTION 4 - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Two accused appellants were convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 399, 402 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the appellants were found in possession of firearms and ammunition while assembling for the purpose of committing dacoity. The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution witnesses were police employees and no independent witnesses were produced, and that one of the appellants was already in police custody on the date of the alleged incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the police witnesses was reliable and corroborated by an independent witness. The court also found that the appellant who claimed to be in police custody on the date of the incident failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of police witnesses is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused appellants? 2. Whether the appellant who claimed to be in police custody on the date of the incident provided sufficient evidence to support his claim? 3. Whether the appellant who was convicted under Sections 399/402 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act is eligible for probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence of the police witnesses was reliable and corroborated by an independent witness. The court noted that the appellants were found in possession of firearms and ammunition while assembling for the purpose of committing dacoity, and that this was sufficient evidence to prove their guilt. 2. The court found that the appellant who claimed to be in police custody on the date of the incident failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim. The court noted that the appellant only produced applications stating that he was in police custody on certain dates, but did not provide any evidence to show that he was in custody on the date of the alleged incident. 3. The court held that the appellant who was convicted under Sections 399/402 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act was eligible for probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The court noted that the appellant was a first-time offender, had a fixed living place, and was involved in agriculture. The court also noted that the appellant had already been released on bail for more than two years and had not committed any further offences.
Final Decision: The appeal of the first appellant was dismissed. The appeal of the second appellant was allowed, and he was granted probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
JUDGMENT
1. - Both these appeals are directed against the judgment passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, dated 30-11-1985 in Sessions Case No. 53/1984 by which both the accused appellants were convicted. Appellant Ramprakash, was convicted and sentenced under Section 399 IPC to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs 200/-. In default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for two months. For the offence under Section 402 IPC he was also sentenced to R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. For the offence under S. 3/25 of the Arms Act, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment. All these sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appellant Bakshi. was convicted for the offence under Section 399 IPC to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. For the offence under Section 402 IPC he was sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. For the offence under S. 3/25 of the Arms Act, he was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment. All these sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. Both the accused appellants being dis-satisfied with the aforesaid conviction and sentence awarded to them by the learned trial court, have filed these appeals against the same judgment. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment therefore, they are disposed of by one common order.
2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that on 31st March 1984, at about 10.30 p.m. motbir informed the S.H.O. Dharampal Singh, that 6.7 bad character persons were sitting near wall of Bandh of Gangapurcity and Udai-kala, who were armed with guns and lathis and from their talks in hushed voice he felt that they were preparing to commit dacoity in the house of Radhey Lal Meena. There-upon Dharam Pal Singh, alongwith the other police constables went in jeep which was stopped at a short distance from the college They went on foot and reached the spot at about 11.30 p m. where they found some people sitting in darkness. When they reached near them they found that they were 6 persons who had guns and were talking. On seeing the police they started running and the police party was successful in catching two persons namely Ramprakash and Bakshi. Accused Ramprakash (Ex P. 5) was having single barrel gun of 315 bore and 22 live cartridges of the same bore were also found in the pocket of his paint. Apart from this, he was also having a torch Accused appellant Bakshi (Ex. P. 4) was also found in possession of one single barrel gun of 12 live cartridges of the same bore were also found in the pocket of his kurta. Apart from this the 4 persons who were successfully in running away left following arms on the spot which were also recovered as Ex. P 6. One country made (Local) single barrel, 12 bore gun, one cloth bag which contains 17 live cartridges, one axe made of iron and one lathi. Both these accused appellants were not having any licence for the local made gun found in their possession. Therefore, they were charge-sheeted under Ss. 309, 402 IPC and also for the offence under S. 3/25 of the Arms Act. The learned trial court after recording the evidence and the statements of the accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and hearing the arguments of both the parties found then guilty and convicted and sentenced them as indicated above.
3. Learned Amicus Curise, Shri Saini, appearing on behalf of accused appellant Ram Prakash, has contended that all the witnesses in this case are police employees and no independent witnesses have been produced. He therefore, urged that no reliance can be placed on the witnesses who are police employees. He has pointed out that only eye witnesses are police employees. He has furth
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
