Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh
CRA-S-2125-SB of 2003
Sandeep Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 22/04/2015}
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.402--Preparing for Dacoity--Acquittal--Mere assembly of five or more persons armed with weapons ipso facto will not be sufficient to record and uphold conviction for the offence under Section 402 of IPC.
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.402--Preparing for Dacoity--Essential Ingredient--To prove the guilt of accused under Section 402 of IPC, the prosecution must prove, from some evidence, directly or indirectly, or from attending circumstances, that the accused persons had assembled for no other purpose than to make preparation for commission of dacoity-- The prosecution must also show some conduct to prove the factum of “preparation” by the assembly, and that the accused persons had conceived any such design for committing dacoity.
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.402--Preparing for Dacoity--Acquittal--Prosecution story that appellant assembled with armed weapons at brick-klin and police party on secret information reached there and over heard the plan to rob petrol pump and liquor vend--Accused persons acquitted on following grounds :-
(i) No names of adjoining shopkeepers were recorded in zimines, who refused to join investigation--Therefore, contention that efforts were made to join independent witness not reliable;
(ii) Panchayat Member who was joined in investigation was withheld by prosecution--Adverse inference drawn against prosecution as cross-examination of such witness would have given leads to the defence.
(iii) Mere recovery of armed weapons from appellants not sufficient for conviction u/s 402 IPC.
Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: - This order shall dispose of CRA-S-2125-SB-2003, ‘titled ‘Sandeep Singh vs. State of Punjab’, CRA-S-2244-SB-2003, titled ‘Manjit Singh alias Nikki vs. State of Punjab’, CRA-S-2302-SB-2003, titled ‘Baldev Singh alias Deba vs. State of Punjab’, CRA-S-39-SB- 2004, titled ‘Gurpreet Singh @ Bhola vs. State of Punjab,’ and CRA-S-504-SB-2004, titled ‘Sukhwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab’, as common questions of fact and law are involved in all the criminal appeals.
2. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kapurthala impugned judgment dated 31.10.2001, held appellants- Sandeep Singh, Manjit Singh alias Nikki, Baldev Singh alias Deba, Gurpreet Singh @ Bhola and Sukhwinder Singh guilty of offence under Section 402 of IPC and appellants-Sandeep Singh and Gurpreet Singh under Section 25 of the Act and vide impugned order dated 05.11.2003, sentenced them as under:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sr. No. Name of Accused Under Section Sentence awarded
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Sandeep Singh 402 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.
25 of Act To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default
whereof to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two months.
2 Manjit Singh 402 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default whereof to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two months.
3 Sukhwinder Singh 402 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default whereof to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two months.
4 Gurpreet Singh 402 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default whereof to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two months.
25 of Act To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default
whereof to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two months.
5 Baldev Singh 402 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default whereof to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two months.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. Instant criminal appeals launch a challenge to the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
5. The factual matrix on which the prosecution version is founded is to the effect that on 03.07.2001, the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Kapurthala received secret information that accused-Gurpreet Singh, Manjit Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Sandeep Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Baldev Singh, who had committed robbery at the gas agency at Kanjli Road, Kapurthala, would assemble with weapons in a deserted brick-kiln in the area of village Rajapur. The secret informer further disclosed that the above named persons had a mind to commit dacoity at the petrol-pump and liquor vend and if a raid is conducted, such a dacoity could be prevented. On finding the information to be reliable, Sub Inspector Satnam Singh joined Darshan Singh, Panchayat Member in the police party and proceeded towards the said place. When the police party reached the said brick-kiln, Sub Inspector Satnam Singh overheard the conversation of the accused who were discussing to rob the petrol pump and liquor vend. The police party apprehended accused-Sandeep Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Manjit Singh
SupremeToday
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
