http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 11

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 491 of 2002

PETITIONER:

Dilawar Singh

RESPONDENT:

State of Delhi

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/09/2007

BENCH:

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.491 OF 2002

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned

Single Judge, Delhi High Court, dismissing the appeal filed by

the appellant and affirming his conviction for offences

punishable under Sections 452, 392 and 397 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ’IPC’) and sentencing him to

undergo one year, two years and seven years rigorous

imprisonment respectively with fine in each case with default

stipulation. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

Complaint was filed by Balwant Singh (hereinafter

referred to as the Complainant-PW1) alleging as follows:

On 8.8.1984 he was sitting at Kali Mata Ka Mandir,

Udaseen Ashram at Village Taharpur, Shahdara, Delhi. He

acts as a priest in the temple. Donations were collected from

various persons to build the temple and he was maintaining

the temple. He was residing at the temple and performing

regular puja. On 8.8.1984 at about 9.30 p.m., after

performing evening puja and aarti and after having dinner he

was doing meditation when five persons including two accused

persons namely the present appellant and one Ram Saran and

three persons who were Sikhs and whose names he did not

know but could identify them, entered into the temple, tied

him with a rope and ran away with the donation box with

cash of about Rs.5,000/-. Appellant was carrying a knife,

Ram Saran was having a lathi and one of the three others who

was a Sikh was having a revolver. After some time two local

persons namely Kanwar Singh and Dr. Salekh Chand came to

the temple and they also saw five persons running towards

Gagan Cinema. Both of them identified the appellant and

Ram Saran; they untied the rope and cried for help. After

hearing their cry several local residents gathered at the temple

and the complainant narrated the whole incident to them.

Complainant along with Kanwar Singh and Dr. Salekh Chand

and others went to lodge report at the police station, Seema

Puri. But the duty officer did not listen to him and the local

residents and directed them to go away. On 9.8.1984

complainant made a written complaint to the Prime Minister,

police officials but to no avail. Therefore, the complaint was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 11

filed on 31.8.1984. After going through the evidence, the

learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was

material to proceed against the appellant, Ram Saran and the

three others. He committed the case in the Court of Sessions

as offence relatable to Section 395 IPC is exclusively triable by

that Court. Accused Dilawar Singh pleaded innocence. Ram

Saran died during the proceedings and the charges against

him were dropped. Except PW-1, no other witness was

examined. It was stated by the prosecution that Dr. Salesh

Chand, Kanwar Singh and others could not be traced despite

the liberty granted to the prosecution. The trial court found

that the delay in making a grievance has been explained and

complainant’s version was acceptable.

3. The appeal before the High Court was dismissed by the

impugned judgment on the ground that PW1’s evidence was

clear and cogent.

4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the alleged incident took place on 8.8.1984 and

the complaint was lodged on 31.8.1984. Except a bare

statement to the effect that representations were made to

various persons but no material in that regard was adduced.

Further, the modalities to be adopted when the police does not

register the FIR are indicated in Section 154 (3) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short t