Pardeep vs State of Haryana

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

Pardeep son of Balbir Singh, aged 18 years and Rajinder son of Chuni Lal aged 19 years, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide judgment dated 27.3.1985, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Feeling aggrieved, Pardeep has filed Criminal Appeal No. 229SB of 1985 and Rajinder has filed Criminal Appeal No. 228SB of 1985. As both the recoveries are from the same place and at the same time, these two appeals are disposed of by one order.

The prosecution case is that on 29th September, 1984, Ram Mehar H.C. PW 2, alongwith other Police Officials was present in Mundhal Chowk in connection with investigation of a dacoity case. Suresh Kumar, PW and Rajinder Kumar PW were present. On receiving a secret information Ram Mehar, HC went to the Bridge of Talu minor alongwith Suresh Kumar and Rajinder Kumar, PWs Rajinder and Pardeep were found sitting their and on personal search of Pardeep, a country made loaded pistol of 12 bore and four live cartridges were recovered. They were taken into possession vide memo Ex. P.A. exhibit P.A. was attested by Rajinder PW 1 and Suresh Kumar PW. From the personal search of Rajinder appellant, a country made pistol of 32 bore was recovered which was loaded. The pistol, Exhibit P 1 and the cartridge Exhibit P 2 to P 6 were taken into possession vide memo Exhibit PA. The Memo Exhibit PA was attested by Suresh and Rajinder, PWs.

After completion of the investigation two separate challans under section 25, Arms Act, were presented against the appellants.

In the challan of Rajinder, the prosecution examined Jai gopal, PW 1, Ram Mehar, HC, PW 2 and SI Daulat Ram, PW 3. Rajinder and Suresh, PWs were given up as won over. In the case of Pardeep, the prosecution examined Rajinder, PW 1, HC Ram Mehar, PW 2, Jai Gopal, PW 3, and Daulat Ram SI PW 4.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Admittedly, it was a case of secret information and two nonofficial witnesses were joined. In the case of Rajinder, appellant, both the nonofficial witnesses Rajinder and Suresh were not examined, and in case of Pardeep one out of them, i.e. Rajinder PW 1 was examined but he did not support the prosecution case and he was declared hostile.

It is well settled law that in case of secret information, the investigating agency must join some independent witnesses. This requirement of joining of independent witnesses is only to ensure that what the official witnesses are deposing is supported by such witnesses. In the case of Rajinder, appellant, both the independent witnesses were not examined and in the case of Pardeep, the only independent witness, Rajinder, did not support the prosecution case. In such a situation, where the independent witnesses are either not examined or do not support the prosecution case, it will not be safe to accept the testimony of official witnesses alone. In the circumstances of the case, especially when these two appellants have been acquitted in the main case under Sections 392/397, Indian Penal Code, I do not feel safe to maintain the conviction of the appellants. Accordingly they are given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge.

The judgment and order of the Court below convicting the appellants under Section 25 of the Arms Act, are set aside and both the appeals are allowed.