Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 87
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
S.S. SARON & DARSHAN SINGH, JJ.
Raj Kumar @ Raju – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-D-503, 476, 583, 588, 990-DB of 2011(O&M)
Decided On : 24-01-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. Preetinder Singh, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
Ms. Ritu Punj, Addl. AG. Punjab
The prosecution must establish incriminating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, and the admissibility of evidence, including disclosure statements and call details, must comply with the legal requirements. Additionally, obtaining the necessary sanction for prosecution under the Arms Act is essential.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Section 302 and Section 120-B and Arms Act, 1959 - [IPC, 302, 120-B, Arms Act]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of five appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including motive, extra-judicial confession, recoveries, call details, and remittance of money by a co-accused from Germany. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the trial court held all the accused guilty and convicted them for the offences. Aggrieved by the judgment, all the appellants filed separate appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish any of the incriminating circumstances alleged against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the motive for the commission of the offence was not established, the extra-judicial confession was not supported by the witness, the recoveries from the possession of the accused were doubtful, the disclosure statements were inadmissible, and the call details were not legally proved. Additionally, the court found that the remittance of money from Germany by a co-accused could not be considered as incriminating evidence. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to obtain the required sanction for prosecution under the Arms Act. Consequently, the court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence of all the accused-appellants, and ordered the release of the accused-appellants in custody.
Issues: The issues in the case revolved around the establishment of incriminating circumstances, admissibility of evidence, and the requirement of sanction for prosecution under the Arms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the prosecution to establish incriminating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt and highlighted the inadmissibility of certain evidence, including disclosure statements and call details. The court also underscored the requirement of obtaining the necessary sanction for prosecution under the Arms Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence of all the accused-appellants, and ordered the release of the accused-appellants in custody.
DARSHAN SINGH, J.
This judgment of ours shall dispose of all the five appeals captioned above which have arisen out of the same judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30.03.2011, vide which all the five appellants have been held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'Act'). They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs. 300/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act (though not specifically mentioned in the impugned order of sentence).
2. The catalogue of the facts and sequence of the events giving rise to this prosecution are that on 05.08.2007, PW-10 Inspector Rakesh Kumar, the then Station House Officer (hereinafter called 'the Investigating Officer') Police Station City Nawanshahr along with other police officials were present at Chandigarh Chowk, Nawanshahr in connection with the law and order duty. At about 9.45.a.m., he received the secret information that a dead body was lying on Saloh-Barsian road in the area of village Saloh. On which, he along with other police officials reached at the spot and found the dead body of unidentified person lying there. From the search of the dead body, he recovered a driving licence. On the basis of the driving licence and the photo affixed therein, the deceased was identified as Sarabjit Singh @ Sabba son of Charanjit Singh, resident of Ambedkar Nagar, Mussapur Road, Nawanshahr. One mobile phone bearing sim no. 98550-89397 was also recovered from the pocket of the deceased. The motorcycle make Hero Honda bearing registration no. PB-32-G-0982 was also lying near the dead body. The deceased was having a firearm injury on the left side of his back. Investigating Officer sent ruqa Ex.PF to the police station. On the basis of which FIR Ex.PF/1 was registered. The photographer was called at the spot, who took the photographs of the place of occurrence from different angles. The Investigating Officer prepared the inquest report Ex.PE. He also prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence. The articles recovered from the dead body were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PD. The dead body of Sarabjit Singh @ Sabba was sent to Civil Hospital for autopsy vide application Ex.PB. After the postmortem examination, ASI Dilbag Singh produced the sealed parcels containing one bullet recovered from the dead body of Sarabjit Singh @ Sabba and his belongings which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PG. The dead body was handed over to his relatives.
3. On 06.08.2007, PW-8-Charanjit Singh, the father of the deceased produced the letter Ex.PW8/A written by his daughter-Manjit Kaur from Germany to him along with the envelope Ex.PW8/B. The said letter was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW8/C along with the covering envelope. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of Charanjit Singh, the father of the deceased, who stated that his daughter-Manjit Kaur was married with co-accused-Jasvir Singh (Proclaimed Offender) in the year 1989. He was residing in Germany at that time. His daughter-Manjit Kaur also accompanied him to Germany after the marriage. The relations between Manjit Kaur and Jasvir Singh were strained. Manjit Kaur had been informing them regarding their strained relations through letters and also by telephone. Jasvir Singh was suspecting the moral character of Manjit Kaur. Due to this reason Manjit Kaur started residing separately in the year 2005. Jasvir Singh s
