Back
HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL
J. C. S. RAWAT
ARBINDER SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL - Respondents
Crl. Appeal 1065 Of 2001
Decided On : August 9, 2005
395 IPC to one u/s. 379 IPC.(Paras 10 and 13)
(ii)Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 395 — Recovery of 25 logs of wood from truck driven by appellant — Conviction by Trial Court — Appeal against conviction on plea of delay in lodging FIR — If it is proved to the satisfaction of Court that delay is properly explained, in that case the delay is not fatal to the prosecution case — Appellant was arrested on spot — After arrest of appellant, forest officials went to place of incident to make an enquiry and only then tractor trolley was brought to office of forest and a report was lodged — Only after taking a decision, FIR was lodged — Delay in lodging FIR satisfactorily
explained and not fatal to prosecution.(Para 14)
(iii)Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 395 — Recovery of 25 logs of wood from truck driven by appellant — Conviction by Trial Court — Appeal against conviction on plea that there was no source of light and that name of PW 3 was not mentioned in FIR — Validity — Since appellant was arrested on spot, source of light was not of much importance — FIR is not encyclopedia of each and every detail which has taken place at place of incident — If genesis of incident has been incorporated in FIR, it is sufficient for police to start investigation — Held non-mention of names of Prosecution Witnesses in FIR not vitiated prosecution case.(Para 15)
(iv)Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 395 — Recovery of 25 logs of wood from truck driven by appellant — Conviction by Trial Court — Appeal against conviction on plea that recovery was not prepared at spot and no recovery had been made from persons of appellant — Validity — Even if recovery memo has not been prepared on spot or there is irregularity in recovery memo, it does not become ipso facto illegal — Fard Ex. Ka 2 was sufficient proof of factum of recovery — No evidence on record to show that forest personnel planted such recovery against appellant — No weight found
in contention of appellant.(Paras 17 and 18)
Facts of the case :
1.The appellant accused herein in the instant case was convicted by Trial Court u/s. 395, IPC. According to prosecution case tractor driven by appellant accused was stopped by forest personnel while on patrolling duty in forest jungle. It was alleged that one of co-
accused sitting on mudguard of tractor fired shot from his rifle while remaining five accused were sitting in trolley. 25 logs of wood were recovered from trolley. Trial Court while acquitting five accused persons convicted only appellant u/s. 395 IPC.
2.Aggrieved appellant has preferred present appeal against said order of conviction and sentence.
3.Findings of the Court : The Court held that as per Section 395 IPC it is mandatory that there must be 5 or more persons to commit robbery. Since five persons had been acquitted, only appellant could not be convicted u/s. 395 IPC. Conviction of appellant was altered from one u/s. 395 IPC to one u/s. 379 IPC. Appellant was arrested on spot. The Court further held that delay in lodging FIR was satisfactorily explained and was not fatal to prosecution as after arrest of appellant, forest officials went to place of incident to make an enquiry and only then tractor trolley was brought to office of forest and a report was lodged. Held non-mention of names of Prosecution Witnesses in FIR not vitiated prosecution case as FIR is not encyclopedia of each and every detail which has taken place at place of incident. Fard Ex. Ka2 was
sufficient proof of factum of
recovery. No evidence on record to show that forest personnel planted such recovery against appellant. No merit was found in contention of
appellant that recovery memo not being prepared on spot,
vitiated prosecution case.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
( 1 ) THESE two criminal appeals were filed against the same judgment and order dated 13-3-1981 passed by Sri m. C. Jain the then 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, nainital in S. T. No. 295 of 1979, State v. Arbinder Singh and 5 others, therefore, these two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant Arbinder Singh to undergo R. I. for a period of four years under S. 395, I. P. C. The learned trial Court acquitted the co-accused, namely, Munshi Ram, Amar Chand, deewan Chand, Gopal Chand and Mugla ram.
( 2 ) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 5/6-7-1979 Ranjeet Singh Rawat (P. W. 1) Range Officer of Forest at Ramnagar along with Kirti Singh Bist (P. W. 2) Forester, khushal Singh (P. W. 3), forest guard and other forest personnel were on patrolling duty in the forest jungle. They stopped tractor No. USR 5958 driven by the appellant. Munshi Ram accused was sitting on the mudguard. Munshi Ram shot fire from the rifle. The remaining accused were sitting in the trolley. Kirti Singh Bist (P. W. 2) snatched the rifle from Munshi Ram. The appellant was arrested on the spot while the other accused made their escape good. 25 logs of wood of the value of Rs. 10,000/- were recovered from the trolley. The appellant along with the recovered wood were brought to the office of the forest department and Fard (Ex. Ka 2) was prepared in the office and the recovered wood was given in the superdigi vide superdiginama (Ex. Ka 3 ). Written report (Ex. Kal) was submitted at P. S. Ramnagar on 6-7-1979 at 8. 30 p. m. On the basis of written report FIR (Ex. Ka 4) was prepared and a case was registered in G. D. (Ex. Ka 5) S. I. Mathura Prasad (P. W. 4)' conducted the investigation and prepared site plan (Ex. Ka6 ). Thereafter, the investigation was conducted by S. O. Sher Pal Singh (P. W. 5) who after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet (Ex. Ka 8)against the appellant and other co-accused.
( 3 ) CHARGE was framed against the appellant u/s. 395, I. P. C. to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
( 4 ) THE prosecution in support of its case examined P. W. 1 Ranjit Singh Rawat, P. W. 2 kirti Singh Bist, P. W. 3 Khushal Singh who are the forest personnel and witnesses of fact. P. W. 4 S. I. Mathura Prasad Juyal and p. W. 5 S. O. Sher Pal Singh conducted the investigation.
( 5 ) IN the statement recorded u/s. 313, cr. P. C. the appellant denied the prosecution case and stated that he has falsely implicated in this case due to enmity.
( 6 ) THE learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence on record found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.
( 7 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record.
( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and there was enmity between the personnel of the forest department and Gyan chand and his party. It was further contended that the forest land was allotted to them in the past and the Government regularised the land but due to the enforcement of the Indian Forest Act the land could not be settled with them. As such the forest department officials had an ill-will against the appellant and co-accused.
( 9 ) AT the outset it is to be noted that only the appellant has been convicted u/s. 395, I. P. C. and the rest of the five accused had been acquitted by the learned trial court. The prosecution in its evidence adduced the evidence of P. W. 1 Ranjit Singh rawat who was the forest ranger. He along with P. W. 2 Kirti Singh Bist, P. W. 3 Kushal singh and other forest personnel were on patrolling duty in the forest area in the fateful night. He narrated the entire prosecution story as mentioned in para No. 2 of this judgment. According to him the patrolling party while on way saw a tractor coming from the opposite side to which the appellant was drivi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
