Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 4046
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Surinder Gupta, J.
Bhoop Singh - Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1358 of 2004
Decided On : 16-10-2018
Abhishek Sanghi, Adv., Amrik Narnwal, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of reliable evidence to prove the elements of the offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. The court emphasized the need for independent corroboration and specific evidence to establish the commission of the alleged offences.
Headnote:
Conviction - Indian Penal Code - Sections 398, 401 - Arms Act, Section 25 - [398 IPC, 401 IPC, 25 Arms Act] - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses and the defense, focusing on the elements required to prove the offences under Section 401 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the existence of a gang for habitual theft or robbery to prove the offence under Section 401 IPC. However, the court upheld the conviction under Section 398 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act based on the reliable testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the evidence of the recovered weapons and ammunition.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for attempting to commit robbery by blocking a road and threatening the occupants of vehicles with pistols. The prosecution presented evidence of the police party's apprehension of the appellants and the recovery of weapons and ammunition from their possession. The defense claimed false implication due to rivalry in the fish trade.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimony of the prosecution witnesses to be reliable and sufficient to prove the commission of the offence under Section 398 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The court set aside the conviction under Section 401 IPC but maintained the conviction and sentence for the other offences.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecution witnesses, the evidence of the appellants' involvement in habitual theft or robbery for the offence under Section 401 IPC, and the possession of weapons and ammunition for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the existence of a gang for habitual theft or robbery to prove the offence under Section 401 IPC. However, the reliable testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the evidence of the recovered weapons and ammunition supported the conviction under Section 398 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
Final Decision: The court partly accepted the appeal, setting aside the conviction under Section 401 IPC but maintaining the conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 398 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act. The appellants were ordered to be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of the sentence.
JUDGMENT
Surinder Gupta, J. - This is appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 30.04.2004 and order of sentence dated 03.05.2004, whereby appellants Bhoop Singh and Kundan Singh were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 398, 401 of Indian Penal Code (for short-IPC), 25 of Arms Act and sentenced them as follows:-
| Sr.No. | Under Section | Sentence. |
| 1 | 398 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for a period of Seven years each. |
| 2 | 401 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for a period of Four years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. |
| 3 | 25 Arms Act | Rigorous imprisonment for a period of Three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. |
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.05.2003, SI/SHO Ami Lal along with his police party was present at Police Station Jatusana, Rewari during night hours, when a secret information was received that two persons were placing stones and wood near the culvert of canal on Jatusana-Gudiana road with intention to commit robbery from the passing vehicles. He along with his police party in plain clothes reached the spot in a private jeep and found that road had been blocked by placing stones and wood. Driver Karan Singh stopped the jeep. In the meanwhile, two persons armed with pistols came from the road side and asked the police party to hand over their belongings to them. Both were apprehended and on inquiry, they disclosed their names as Kundan son of Jagmal Singh and Bhoop Singh son of Jagmal Singh (appellants). The pistols in their hands were taken into possession and on checking one live cartridge each was found loaded in the pistols of both the appellants, which were unloaded. On search, five live cartridges were also recovered from both the accused separately. The pistols and live cartridges were taken into possession. Rough sketch of the pistols were prepared and the appellants were formally arrested. Ruqa Ex.PB was sent to the police station, whereupon formal FIR Ex.PB/1 was registered and endorsement to this effect Ex.PB/2 was made on the ruqa. Site plan of the place of apprehension of the appellants was prepared and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in the court.
3. On finding a prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 398, 401 IPC and 25 Arms Act, the appellants were charge-sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined Dharampal Draftsman as PW1, Head Constable Surjeet Singh as PW2, Constable Jai Bhagwal as PW3, Lakhmir Singh Ahlmad as PW4, Head Constable Mahavir Parshad as PW5, ASI Prithvi Singh as PW6 and SI Ami Lal, the Investigating Officer of the case as PW7 and thereafter, learned Public Prosecutor closed prosecution evidence.
5. Statements of appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they denied the allegations against them and pleaded their false implication. They examined DW1 Raja Ram, Accountant, office of Fisheries Development Officer, Rewari as DW1, who deposed that appellant Kundan Singh was authorised to catch fishes in the area of Rewari and Mohindergarh from the notified water channels, canals and drains vide permit Ex.DA and Ex.DA/1.
6. Relying on the testimony of prosecution witnesses, the appellants were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as detailed in opening para of this judgment.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the judgment of the Court below, has argued that the testimony of prosecution witnesses find no independent corroboration. The police party had allegedly gone to the spot in a private jeep but it was not disclosed as to who was o
