Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 136
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
Sanjeev Kumar and others - Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
CRA-S-1299-SB-2014 (O&M)
Decided on : 14-07-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr.Manish Dadwal, AAG, Haryana.
The sufficiency of evidence and the explanation for delay in lodging the FIR were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Headnote:
TUNNEL ESCAPE - Criminal Law - Section 224, Section 120-B IPC - The judgment discusses the commission of offence punishable under Section 224 read with Section 120-B IPC. The court analyzed the evidence and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants under the mentioned sections.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for planning to escape from jail by digging a tunnel. The prosecution presented evidence of the planned escape and involvement of the accused in providing tools and resources for the escape. The trial court found the appellants guilty and convicted them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the delay in lodging the FIR to be satisfactorily explained and rejected the argument that the prosecution had concocted a story. It upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Issues: The delay in lodging the FIR, the sufficiency of evidence, and the reliance on disclosure statements of the accused were the key issues in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in lodging the FIR does not necessarily cast suspicion on the case, and the FIR is not required to contain all details of the prosecution case. The case of the prosecution does not solely rely on disclosure statements, and there was sufficient evidence to support the guilt of the appellants.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed for the appellants.
JUDGMENT :
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each for the commission of offence punishable under Section 224 read with Section 120-B IPC.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Factual matrix of the prosecution case is that on 24.10.2008, on receipt of an information with regard to digging of a tunnel, Inspector Suraj Bhan along with other police officials reached Central Jail, Ambala and Sher Singh, the then Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala moved a letter dated 24.10.2008 stating therein that death convicts namely Sanjeev Kumar, Anand Kindo, Rajan Gaur and Masood Akhtar Haidar @ Ramu were lodged in 32 Cell Ward of Central Jail, Ambala. On 18.10.2008, a surprise checking was conducted of the said Cell Ward during which a 2-21/2 feet deep pit was found in the corner of the Cell near the wall. On interrogation, it was found that the aforesaid convicts, in connivance with each other, had planned to escape from jail by digging a tunnel. On this complaint, offence punishable under Section 224 read with Section 34 IPC was found to have been committed. The matter was investigated and during investigation involvement of other accused namely Sonia, Poonam, Raj Kumar @ Prince, Rishi Raj and Rajeev Kumar was also found as they provided a SIM card and a mobile phone on forged ID to facilitate their plan to run away from the jail by digging tunnel. The aforesaid accused persons were arrested and after completion of investigations, challan against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 224/419/420/467/468/ 471/222/34/120-B IPC was presented in the Court.
3. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., charge under Section 224 read with Sections 34/120-B IPC was framed against all the accused, charge under Sections 225 read with Sections 34/120-B IPC was also framed against accused Raj Kumar @ Prince, Rishi Raj @ Rishi, Rajeev Kumar and Poonam, charge under Section 222 IPC was framed against accused Poonam, charge under Section 419 IPC was framed against accused Raj Kumar @ Prince, charge under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC read with sections 34/120-B IPC was framed against accused Raj Kumar @ Prince, Rishi Raj @ Rishu and Rajeev Kumar vide order dated 10.07.2009, to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. In their defence evidence, the accused examined three witnesses.
5. After hearing arguments of both the sides, the trial Court held the present appellants-accused Sanjeev Kumar, Masood Akhtar @ Haidar @ Ramu, Anand Kindo and Rajan Gaur guilty of offence punishable under Section 224 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and convicted them. Since there was no incriminating evidence against the remaining accused, they were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
CONTENTIONS
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the occurrence had taken place on 18.10.2008 whereas the FIR had been registered on 24.10.2008. As per him, the delay of six days in lodging the FIR is quite enough to concoct a story. He further asserted that there is no mention of the articles allegedly recovered from the spot in the complaint. The whole case of the prosecution is based on disclosure statements of accused persons before the police. Moreover, the articles alleged to have been recovered from the spot i.e. khurpi, thali, danda, iron rod etc. where the alleged pit was found, fall under the definition of ‘prohibited articles’ mentioned in para 606 of Punjab Jail Manual and there is no report about the theft of aforesaid articles. In addition, as per Ex.DW1/1, the daily search report, no pit was found and the prosecution was not able to show any instrument or weapon used by acc
