Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
Amit Singh and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 455 of 2005
Decided On : 10-01-2020
CRIMINAL APPEAL - CONVICTION - ARMS ACT - SECTION 3/25 AND 4/25 - PROBATION - SECTION 4 AND 5 OF THE PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT - ARMS ACT - NO PROHIBITION AGAINST GRANT OF PROBATION - SECTION 4/25 - APPELLANTS ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF PROBATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 399, 402, 3/25, and 4/25 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act, respectively. The prosecution alleged that the appellants had formed an unlawful assembly and planned to loot a bank. The main evidence against the appellants was the testimony of a police constable who claimed to have overheard the appellants discussing the plan.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the police constable was unreliable and could not be relied upon to establish the charge of conspiracy to loot a bank. The court also found that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act since they were first-time offenders and the offences were not of a serious nature.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the police constable was reliable and could be relied upon to establish the charge of conspiracy to loot a bank. 2. Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence of the police constable was unreliable and could not be relied upon to establish the charge of conspiracy to loot a bank because: (a) the constable's testimony was full of contradictions and inconsistencies; (b) the constable had not recorded the details of the alleged conspiracy in the police station diary; and (c) the constable had not mentioned the names of the appellants in his initial statement to the police. 2. The court held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act because: (a) they were first-time offenders; (b) the offences were not of a serious nature; and (c) the appellants had shown remorse for their actions.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part. The conviction of the appellants for the offence under Sections 399 and 402 IPC was quashed and set aside. The conviction of the appellants for the offences under Sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act was affirmed, but the appellants were given the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Mehta, J.
1. The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 21.05.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 01/2004:
Amit Singh, Meenu @ Manjeet Singh, Harendra Singh, Lalit Kumar, Rinku Singh, Dharmendra Singh and Robin Tyagi:
| Offences | Sentences | Fine | Fine Default sentences |
| Under Section 399 IPC | 2 years' R.I. | Rs. 500/- each | Two Months' S.I. |
| Under Section 402 IPC | 2 years' R.I. | Rs. 500/- each | Two Months' S.I. |
Amit Singh and Lalit Kumar:
| Offences | Sentences | Fine | Fine Default sentences |
| Under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act | 1 year's R.I. | Rs. 300/- each | One Month's S.I. |
Meenu @ Manjeet Singh, Rinku Singh, Harendra Singh, Dharmendra Singh and Robin Tyagi:
| Offences | Sentences | Fine | Fine Default sentences |
| Under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act | 1 year's R.I. | Rs. 300/- each | One Month's S.I. |
All the substantive sentences awarded to the accused were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Being aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
3. Learned counsel Shri Bora representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently urged that conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 399 and Section 402 IPC cannot be sustained because the evidence of the star prosecution eye witness Rashid Mohammed (PW-20), who claims to have joined the so-called unlawful assembly formed by the accused, while they were planning the alleged dacoity, is far from convincing and deserves to be discarded. He urges that the witness did not state that the FIR (Ex. P/25) was registered on the basis of information provided by him to the SHO. He further contended that the Parcha Kaymi (Ex. P/24) does not bear the signatures of Rashid Mohammed. Neither, in the Parcha Kaymi nor in the previous police statement of Rashid Mohammed, is it mentioned that he overheard the accused planning that they would be looting any particular bank. But, while deposing in the court, he made a significant improvement from the previous versions and stated that in his presence, the accused were hatching a pertinent design to loot The State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, the Krishni Mandi Branch, Bhilwara. He thus urged that this allegation of Rashid Mohammed is a sheer improvement from his previous statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex. D/6) with which he was confronted during his cross-examination and he could not explain this significant deviation. Thus, as per Shri Bora, charge for the offence under Section 399/402 IPC cannot be sustained against any of the appellants. He further submits that the appellants Amit Singh and Lalit Kumar, who were also convicted for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act for being in possession of a Deshi Katta each, were respectively 19 and 20 years of age when the offence was committed. As such, these appellants are entitled to be released on probation as per law. He further submitted that from the possession of the appellants Rinku Singh, Meenu @ Manjeet Singh and Harendra Singh, recovery of a knife and two live cartridges each has been shown. He urged that the recovery of live cartridges, apart from being obviously concocted, does not amount to any offence. He further submitted that mere possession of knives, in absence of any evidence to show that the same were not meant for industrial, agricultural or domestic purposes, mere possession cannot be construed to be an offence in view of the notification dated 29.01.2000 issued by the Department of Home, State of Rajasthan (Ex. P/22). Regarding the appellants Dharmendra Singh and Robin Tyagi from whom a Gupti each is said to have been recovered, the contention of Shri Bora
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
