Back
2002 Supreme(HP) 226
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
R.L.KHURANA,M.R.VERMA
ARJUN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF H.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 350, 684 of 2000
Decided On : 08/23/2002
Cr. Appeal No. 350 of 2000 :M/s. Rajnish Lal arid N.D. Sharma, Advocates, for the Appellants; Mr. K.D. Batish Additional Advocate General, for Respondents. Cr. Appeal No. 684 of 2000:Mr. K.D. Batish Additional Advocate General, for the Appellant; M/s. Rajnish Lal and N.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 7; Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 2; Mr. Rakesh Jaiswal, Advocate, for the Respondents 5 and 6; Mr. Vijay Bhatia, Advocate, Vice Mr. Bhunvesh Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 1.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable and consistent evidence, particularly in cases involving identification of the accused and extra-judicial confessions. The court emphasized the need for a test identification parade and the unreliability of identification made in court after a long period from the date of the alleged occurrence.
Headnote:
Identification of Accused - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 147, 395, 396 - Indian Forest Act, Section 41/42 - The court found that the identification of the accused made by the witnesses in court after a long period from the date of the alleged occurrence was unreliable. The absence of a test identification parade and contradictions in the evidence led to the conclusion that the identification of the accused could not be accepted and relied upon. The court also held that the extra-judicial confessions made by the accused were self-contradictory and not reliable. The evidence as to the apprehension of the accused was also found to be self-contradictory and unreliable. Consequently, the convictions and sentences of the accused were set aside, and they were acquitted of the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the trial of nine individuals for various offences including theft of resin and assault resulting in the death of a chowkidar at a forest depot. The prosecution's case relied on the identification of the accused and extra-judicial confessions made by them. However, the evidence regarding the identification of the accused, extra-judicial confessions, and apprehension of the accused was found to be unreliable and contradictory.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the identification of the accused, extra-judicial confessions, and apprehension of the accused, was unreliable and contradictory. As a result, the convictions and sentences of the accused were set aside, and they were acquitted of the charges.
Issues: The main issues in the case revolved around the reliability of the evidence regarding the identification of the accused, extra-judicial confessions, and apprehension of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the unreliability and contradictions in the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly regarding the identification of the accused, extra-judicial confessions, and apprehension of the accused.
Final Decision: The court set aside the convictions and sentences of the accused and acquitted them of the charges. The bail bonds of the accused were cancelled and discharged, and any fines already deposited by the accused were to be refunded to them. Case property was to be dealt with as per the directions of the trial court.
R.L. Khurana, J.—The abovenoted two appeals arising out of the judgment dated 29.6.2000 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, in sessions trial No. l-NL/7 of 1998 are being disposed of together by this single judgment.
2. The nine respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 684 of 2000, namely, S/Shri Jagdish Chand, Narinder Kumar, Arjun Singh, Raju, Rakesh Kumar, Tej Singh, Jai Gopal, Sher Bahadur and Vinod Bahadur (hereinafter respectively referred to as Al to A9) were tried for the offences under Sections 147,395/149,396/f 149 and 353, Indian Penal Code and for the offence under Section 41/42, Indian Forests Act. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 29.6.2002 ^quitted Al, A2, A4, A5, A6 and A8 of all the offences charges against them. A9 was also acquitted of the offences under Sections 147, 395/149, 396/149 and 353, Indian Penal Code. He was convicted only for the offence under Section 41/42, Indian Forest Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 5,000. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. A3 (Arjun Singh) and A7 (Jai Gopal) though were acquitted of the offence under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, were convicted for the offences under Sections 395, 396 and 353, Indian Penal Code, and under Section 41/42, Indian Forests Act and upon such conviction each one of them was sentenced as under:— (a) simple imprisonment of two years for the offence under Section 353, Indian Penal Code; (b) rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 10,000 for the offence under Section 395, Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months; (c) rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 10,000 for the offence under Section 396, Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months; and (d) simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 5,000 for the offence under Section 41 /42, Indian Forest Act. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.
3. All the substantive sentence of imprisonment in respect of A3 and A7 were directed to run concurrently.
4. Briefly, the prosecution story may be thus stated. PW 21 Sita Ram is working as a Chowkidar with the H.P. Forest Corporation since 1993. In the year 1997 he was posted as night Chowkidar at the Resin Depot of the Forest Corporation at Taker. One Ram Lok son of Hari Ram (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was also posted as night Chowkidar alongwith PW 21 at the said Resin Depot. On 28.10.1997 PW 21 and the deceased were on duty. At about 11 p.m. when PW 21 and deceased were sitting in a room adjacent to the resin depot, 8/10 persons came at the door and threatened to kill them if they tried to move or raise an alarm. 2-3 persons then stood posted at the door while others started lifting and carrying the resin tins towards the road above. When PW 21 and the deceased tried to stop the said persons from lifting and carrying the resin tins, the persons posted at the door attacked the deceased by hitting him on the head with a weapon. PW 21 then rushed out and raised an alarm that resin was being stolen and that the deceased had been assaulted. On hearing such alarm a number of persons from the village came to the spot whereupon those 8-10 persons fled away. Truck Bearing No. HP-51-2556 was found parked on the road in which the said persons before fleeing had loaded the stolen resin tins. Nineteen tins were found loaded in the said truck, which truck bore the name of its owner as Dharmender Sharma son of Ramesh Chand Sharma, village Bumti, Tehsil Arki, District Solan. One of those 8-10 persons was nabbed while fleeing, who was A-9 and handed over to Babu Ram, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat.
5. A case for the offence under Sections 379, 382, 120-B, 323 and 506, Indian Penal Code and under Section 41/42, In
