German Singh and Others vs State of Punjab

Harjit Singh Bedi, J.—The six appellants were charged for offences punishable under Sections 450/395/342 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed dacoities in the house of Ajit Singh complainant and Darshan Singh, residents of village Ghumanpura, during the night intervening 8/9.4.1992. Several house-bold articles were taken away at the time of the dacoities. The trial Court relying on the evidence of Ajit Singh, Darshan Singh and Jagir Kaur P.Ws. and the recoveries made at the instance of the accused pursuant to their statements u/s 27 of the Evidence Act, convicted and sentenced them as under: -

Under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code

To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 700/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months

Undr Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code

To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months

Undr Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months

All the substantive sentences where, however, ordered to run concurrently

It is against the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court that the present appeal has been filed.

Mr.P.S.Hundal, the learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that as per the prosecution story the dacoities had taken place during the night intervening 8/9.4.1992, but Darshan Singh, one of the victims of the dacoity, had deposed that the dacoity had in fact taken place on 26.3.1992 and as such the very basis of the prosecution story was lacking. It has also been pointed out that as per the evidence on record, the recoveries had been made from all the accused on 15.4.1992 as a follow up to their statements u/s 27 of the Evidence Act made on the same day, but it had come in the evidence of PW-2 HC Sohan Lal that the accused had been in custody since 8/9.4.1992 (whereas their arrest had been shown by the police on 14.9.1992) the recoveries could not be believed. It has also been pleaded that as per the evidence on record, in addition to several other items,.12 bore country made pistols had been recovered from Phuman Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Mangal Singh and these three, had in a separate trial, held by the designated court, been acquitted with a finding that the prosecution evidence on this score could not believed and as such the other recoveries from the accused based on the evidence of these same witnesses, also could not also be relied upon.

Mr.Jayender S.Chandail, the learned State counsel has, however, pointed out that as per the admitted facts the accused as well as the prosecution witnesses were all residents of village Ghumanpura and as the names of the accused had figured in the FIR, and no animosity of any kind suggested or proved on record, the possibility of their false implication or their incorrect identification could not arise.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

It is an admitted fact that the victims of the dacoities, who appeared as prosecution witnesses as also the accused, do belong to village Ghumanpura. The question that arises is as to whether these witnesses can be believed. It must first and foremost be noted that Darshan Singh aforesaid, one of the victims of the dacoities, stated that the dacoity had taken place on 26.3.1992, whereas in fact the prosecution story is that it was during the night intervening 8/9.4.1992. Even assuming that Darshan Singh being a rustic villager had made an erroneous statement with regard to the date, yet there is another circumstance, which, to my mind, goes to the root of the matter. PW-2 HC Sohan Lal stated in his cross-examination that the appellants were arrested on or 9.4.1992. As per the prosecution story the accused-appellants had been arrested on 14.4.1992 and the recoveries made on 15.4.1992. To my mind, the evidence of HC Sohan Lal completely demolishes the prosecution story as it is clear that the accused were in custody from 8/9.4.1992. There is yet another circumstance which clearly belies the prosecution story. The recoveries had been made from all the appellants pursuant to their disclosure statements made u/s 27 of the Evidence Act on 15.4.1992. As per the evidence, a VCR had been recovered from German Singh,.12 bore country made pistol and a HMT watch from Phuman Singh, a pair of ear ring and 12 bore country made pistol from Sukhdev Singh, an ear ring and a country made pistol from Mangal Singh, one silver Hansali from Sarabjit Singh and a gold ring from Dilbagh Singh. It is the conceded position that the accused from whom the pistols had been recovered were tried by the designated court and were acquitted not on any technical grounds, but on the finding that the evidence produced by the prosecution including the statements of the prosecution witnesses did not inspire confidence and that the case against them was thus not proved on facts. To my mind, therefore, the recovery of the pistols having been disbelieved with these findings, it would be well nigh impossible to accept the statements of the same witnesses with regard to the recovery of the other articles from the accused. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the accused-appellants are acquitted on all counts.