Back
2009 Supreme(All) 2878
[2009(9) ADJ 71]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SHRI KANT TRIPATHI, J.
AMAR SINGH ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
STATE OF U.P. ...Respondent
(Criminal Appeal No. 1008 of 1981, decided on 13th August, 2009)
Counsel :
B.N. Asthana and Mukhtar Alam (Amicus Curiae) for the Appellant; A.K. Jain, A.G.A. for the Respondent.
Headnote:(Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 392 and 397—Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 3 and 9—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 313—Offence under—Conviction and sentence by Sessions Judge under Sections 392 and 397 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years—Appeal against by convicts—Factum of recovery of wrist watch—Identification in identification proceedings—Single witness can be relied upon—Emphasis laid on quality and not quantity of evidence for proving or disproving fact—What is required under law, is to scrutinise testimony of witness and if on such scrutiny his evidence is found reliable, probable and trustworthy, evidence of solitary witness (evidence) can be made a basis for recording a valid conviction—Additional Sessions Judge very elaborately scrutinised statement of witness PW-1—Discrepancies found were minor and were not material to discard prosecution case—Incident of recovery being quite separable from incident of robbery, cannot be taken as a ground to discard the incident of robbery—Additional Sessions Judge has properly examined appellant under Section 313, Cr.P.C.—As such, it cannot be contended that defence of appellant was prejudiced in any way or he was mislead by manner adopted by the lower Court in examining the appellant under Section 313, Cr.P.C.—Held, no interference in punishment inflicted upon appellant. [Paras 22 to 26, 29, 35, 36, 37 and 38]
Hon’ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J.—The appellant Amar Singh has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.1.1981 rendered by Sri H.C. Rastogi, the then Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, in S.T. No. 199A of 1978, State of U.P. v. Amar Singh, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 392 read with Section 397, I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years.
2. The facts leading to this appeal may be stated as follows :
3. The complainant Krishna Manohar (P.W.1) was serving as a lecturer in Agra College, Agra and also used to run a Homoeopathic Clinic in Bag Muzaffar Khan within the limits of Hari Parvat, District Agra. On 8.7.1975 at about 9.05 p.m. when the complainant was about to close the clinic, the appellant Amar Singh and co-accused Guddu @ Kailash Prasad and one unknown person entered inside the complainant’s clinic and forcibly took his diary containing cash amount of Rs. 52/- and few papers from his pocket and removed his roamer wrist watch. The appellant and his associates did this act of robbery by pointing out a knife on the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant raised alarm whereupon certain passer-by arrived there but the appellant and his associates fled away along with robbed wrist watch and diary including the cash amount of Rs. 52/-. The complainant Krishna Mohan lodged the FIR Exhibit Ka-1 at the police station Hari Parvat on the same day at about 9.40 p.m. on which basis the police registered the case for investigation.
4. P.W. 3 Sub-Inspector Chakradhar Dobal undertook the investigation and prepared the site plan Exhibit Ka-3 and recorded the statement of the complainant on 9.7.1975.
5. It may also be mentioned that on 9.7.1975 at about 5.15 p.m. P.W. 4 Sub-Inspector Sukendra Pal Singh arrested the appellant Amar Singh and his friends Pradeep and Guddu near the office of the Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner in the presence of the witnesses Basan and Munna on the basis of an information furnished by an informer. On search a knife and a roamer wrist watch were recovered from the possession of the appellant Amar Singh who stated that the roamer wrist watch was robbed from the complainant. It may also mentioned that the recovered roamer wrist watch was correctly identified by the complainant in an identification proceedings held by the Additional City Magistrate, Agra.
6. The investigating officer filed charge-sheet against the appellant and other accused on completion of the investigation. The appellant had absconded and as such his case was separated from the case of the co-accused and due to this he was tried later on separately.
7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge under Section 392 read with Section 397, I.P.C. against the appellant. An alternative charge under Section 411, I.P.C. was also framed against him. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
8. The prosecution examined as many as five witnesses in support of its case.
9. In regard to the incident of the robbery, the prosecution has examined P.W. 1 Krishna Manohar, who is the complainant. This witness has supported the prosecution story and has also proved the FIR, Exhibit Ka-1.
10. To prove the factum of recovery of the wrist watch from the appellant, the prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of P.W. 4 Sukhendra Pal Singh, Sub Inspector, and PW-5 Munna. PW-4 Sukhendra Pal Singh has not only proved the arrest of the appellant and his associates Pradeep and Guddu on 9.7.1975 at about 5 p.m.-5.15 p.m. on the basis of the information given by the informer, but has also proved the story of recovery of the knife and one wrist watch from the possession of the appellant and the recovery memo Exhibit Ka-5. PW-5 Munna is alleged to be an independent witness of the recovery. He was a rickshaw-puller and is alleged to be present near Delhi Gate Chauraha before the recovery along with other witness Ram
