SURENDER SINGH vs THE STATE OF HARYANA - 2024-02-07

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. Though the appellant has undergone the period of incarceration, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks to argue on merits, as according to him, it is a case of no evidence.

3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that upon being informed by the informant, who has not been examined, they went to the place of occurrence and arrested five accused who had prepared to commit dacoity behind closed doors. Recovery of pistol was made along with one cartridge. Accordingly, all the accused persons (five in number) have been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the Act’) along with provisions of Arms Act, 1959.

4. We find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The police party made the search upon receiving a secret information tip. It is inexplicable as to why the said persons have not been examined.

5. Though the evidence has been let in to show that PW-3, a police officer being a part of the police party had over-heard the preparation, we are not inclined to give any importance to the said evidence. The accused persons were found inside the room. The entire police party went in search of the accused person upon a secret information being received. Therefore, the said statement of PW-3 does not inspire confidence. Coming to the so- called recovery, even assuming that it is true, it can at best, be passed on to one of the accused persons. The recovery is of a pistol having a single cartridge. PW-4 also states that the pistol has not been tested to show as to whether it is in working condition or not.

6. In such view of the matter, we are of the view that both the Courts have committed an error in convicting the appellant.

7. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in setting aside the conviction rendered by both the Courts below against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC. The appellant has not been charged under the provisions of Arms Act, 1959.

8. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………………………………………J.

[M.M. SUNDRESH]

……………………………………………………J.

[S.V.N. BHATTI]

NEW DELHI;

7th FEBRUARY, 2024 ITEM NO.107 COURT NO.14 SECTION II-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 6652/2014

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-02-2010 in CRLA No.168-SB/2002 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)

SURENDER SINGH Petitioner(s)

VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)

(IA No. 16030/2014 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING)

Date : 07-02-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI For Petitioner(s) Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Mr. Srilok Nath Rath, Adv.

Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv.

Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Adv.

Ms. Reena Rao, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, D.A.G.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Ms. Himani Bhatnagar, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(SWETA BALODI) (POONAM VAID)

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

(Signed order is placed on the file)