Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1782

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur, N.S. Shekhawat, JJ.
Anoop Alias Kirori – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-D-562-DB-2010 (O&M)
Decided On : 30-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel), for the Appellant; Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana, for the Respondent.

The evidentiary worth of a signatured disclosure statement leading to recoveries at the accused's instance and the accused's inability to deny or disprove the statement strengthen its credibility.

Headnote:
Conviction - Criminal Appeal - IPC, Arms Act - Sections 332/353/302/307/392/397, read with Section 34 of IPC, and, under Sections 25/27/57/59 of Arms Act
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a conviction under various sections of the IPC and Arms Act for offenses related to a motorcycle theft, police pursuit, firing at police, and subsequent arrest and recovery of incriminatory items.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the accused guilty based on medical evidence, disclosure statement, and recoveries, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the verdict of conviction and the imposed sentence.
Issues: The key issues included the reliability of the disclosure statement and recoveries, the timing of firearm usage, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that a signatured disclosure statement leading to recoveries at the accused's instance holds evidentiary worth, and the accused's inability to deny or disprove the statement strengthens its credibility.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the imposed sentence was upheld, with instructions for execution if the accused was on bail.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The relevant Sessions Case No.6 of 2009, whereons, the impugned verdict of conviction became drawn on 29.01.2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Bhiwani, arose from FIR No.174 of 03.12.2003.

2. In the above FIR one Vinod, one Manoj, one Ravi Kumar, one Rajesh, one Gulshan, and, one Anoop alias Kirori (who is the convict-appellant in the instant appeal) were arrayed as accused. The offences embodied in the above FIR were constituted under Sections 332/353/302/307/392/397, read with Section 34 of IPC, and, under Sections 25/27/57/59 of Arms Act. The FIR (supra), became registered with Police Station Siwani.

3. After conclusion of the trial in respect of the above accused, except the present appellant, the learned convicting Court through a judgment made, on 16.04.2007, proceeded to record a finding of conviction on various counts against accused Vinod and also co-accused Manoj, but made a verdict of acquittal against co-accused Ravi Kumar, Rajesh, and, Gulshan, but only in respect of charges drawn against them under Section 216-A of IPC.

4. Moreover, through a sentencing order drawn on 16.04.2007, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Bhiwani, the convicts Vinod, and, Manoj became entailed with capital punishment qua a charge for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Moreover, in respect of other charges drawn against the above convicts also consequent therewith sentence(s) became imposed upon the above convicts. However, co-convicts Vinod, and, Manoj preferred Criminal Appeal No.CRA-D-524-DB-2007, titled 'Vinod Vs. State of Haryana' before this Court, and thereons vide judgment recorded on 05.03.2008, this Court though affirmed the verdict of conviction, as became recorded against them, but commuted the sentence of capital punishment to a sentence of life imprisonment, qua an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, besides imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- on each of them, and, in default thereof, sentenced the co-convicts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto two years. Nonetheless the verdict of conviction and consequent therewith sentence(s) (supra), as became recorded against the convict (supra), in respect of charges other than the one drawn under Section 302 of the IPC was not disturbed by this Court.

5. When the instant appeal became listed on 27.09.2022, this Court had made the hereinafter extracted order.

'1. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana submits that the verdict pronounced with respect to the co-convicts by the learned trial Judge concerned on 29.01.2010, upon, Sessions Case No.6 of 2009 though did result in an appeal being made there-against, before this Court, however both counsel submit that the relevant appeal has been dismissed. Moreover, they further submit that there has been no challenge to the verdict of dismissal as made upon appeal No.524, as such, the decision made by this Court on appeal (supra) acquires finality."

THE ACCUSED WAS A PROCLAIMED OFFENDER

6. But obviously the order (supra) does make the verdict as made, by this Court on 05.03.2008, upon Criminal Appeal bearing No. CRA-D-524-DB-2007 titled ' Vinod Vs. State of Haryana', to be holding the apposite conclusive, and, binding effect. Resultantly, though the above conclusive and binding verdict, as made in respect of above appeal of co-convicts (supra), would have a telling bearing upon the fate of the instant appeal also. The reason becomes comprised in the factum, that the present convict-appellant, through an order drawn on 10.03.2005, hence was declared proclaimed offender by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Siwani,. Therefore, he did not appear before the learned trial Judge concerned, along with the appearing accused, for his being tried alongwith the appearing accused. However, after his becoming arrested on 08.12.2008, but only after compliance being meted to the mandate carried in Section 299 of Cr.P.C., that the trial against him b