Allahabad High Court
Chhotey (D) And Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 25 November, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004CRILJ2384
JUDGMENT Mukteshwar Prasad, J.
1. Accused Chhotey, Ram Ashre, Durga alias Daroga Pal, Ram Lal alias Shri Kishan, Tiwary alias Guru and Shiv Ram have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 13-5-1981 passed by Sri T. P. Gupta, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur whereby he convicted all the six accused under Sections 399/402, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 399, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years under Section 302, IPC. Accused Chotey, Ram Ashre, Durga alias Daroga Pal and Ram Lal alias Shri Krishna were further convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. All the sentences of the accused were directed to run concurrently.
2. Appellants Chotey, Ram Ashre, Durga alias Daroga Pal and Tiwary alias Guru expired during pendency of this appeal. Hence their appeal stands abated.
3. The prosecution came to the Court with the allegations that on 28-8-1979 at about 7.00 p.m. S. I. Ashok Kumar Sharma, the then S.O. police station Sachendi, received information that a gang of dacoits headed by Devi Din alias Pathan would assemble under the Mango tree standing in the plot of Siddha, son of Babu Ram to commit dacoity at the house of Ghasitey, son of Chidda, a resident of village Rustampur Believing this information to be correct, the S.O. collected the entire police force and entire police force fully armed and led by S.O. left the police station at 8-30 p.m. They reached village Bhairampur at about 9-30 p.m. Four public witnesses, namely, Kripal Singh and Ram Swarup with their guns, Gama and Mullu with lathis and torches, were summoned through constable Samsher Bahadur Singh. The entire police force and public witnesses were divided into three parties. H.C. Hridai Narain and two constables Pati Ram and Samsher Bahadur Singh along with their arms were deputed to the house of Ghasitey for his protection. All the three parties took their position in the plot of Siddhe. After half an hour, three miscreants arrived there and started smoking under Mango tree. Again, three miscreants reached there and joined their companions. Thereafter, four dacoits arrived there, including Gang leader Devi Din. There was complete darkness. They all were heard saying that Sardar had also arrived and they were getting late. They stood up to proceed to their destination. The police force was satisfied after hearing the conversation amongst the dacoits that a Gang of dacoits with preparation to commit dacoity had assembled there. Therefore, the S.O. fired twice from V.L.P. and challenged the dacoits that they had been surrounded by the police. All the members of the three parties flashed their torches and surrounded the dacoits and succeeded in apprehending six dacoits on the spot. This arrest was made at about 11.15 p.m. However, four dacoits ran away towards south. Maiku Pal, who was one of the four dacoits, was identified correctly in the light of V.L.P. and torches. After personal search, one country made pistol and four cartridges were recovered from the possession of Ram Ral. A pharsa was recovered from the possession of Shiv Ram. All articles, weapons and cartridges recovered from the possession of the dacoits on the spot were sealed separately and sample of Fard was prepared. The arrested dacoits were made 'Baparda' and Fard recovery was prepared on the spot, which was signed by entire police force and the public witnesses.
4. Police force reached the police station and a case was registered at the police station on the basis of Fard recovery at crime No. 283 at 4-15 a.m.
5. The investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I. Munshi Singh. Devi Lal and Chhotey Lal were arrested by the police during investigation and they were correctly identified at the, parade. After completing investigation, all the six accused who were arrested by the police on the spot and Devi Din, Maiku and Chhotey were charge-sheeted.
6. After committal of the case, all the nine accused were charged under Section 399 and 402 of Penal Code. Accused Ram Lal was further charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act. They pleaded not guilty to the charges.
7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 S.I. G.S. Tomar, leader of the third party, and P.W. 6 Ashok Kumar Sharma S.O. leader of the first party, P.W. 2 H.C. Babu Lal Tewari, P.W. 3 Mullu, P.W. 4 Kirpal Singh and P.W. 7 Ram Swarup Singh, public witnesses were examined. The prosecution examined P.W. 5 H.G.S. Mathur Special Executive Magistrate and S.I. Munshi Singh I.O. of the case.
8. Ram Lal and Shiv Ram totally denied their arrest and recovery of arms, as alleged by the prosecution, and pleaded their false implication on account of enmity. Both disclosed that they were arrested by the police from their respective houses at about 7.00 a.m. Accused examined one K. P. Verma, an employee of Central Telegraph Office, Kanpur as defence witness.
9. After evaluating the entire evidence on record and circumstances of the case and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Judge found Chhotey, Ram Ashre, Daroga Pal, Ram Lal, Jai Shiv and Shiv Rant guilty for the offences punishable under Section 399/402, IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under each count. He further convicted Ram Lal under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to suffer two years rigorous imprisonment. Three accused, namely, Chotey, son of Ram Nand. Maiku and Devi Din were acquitted. Hence this appeal.
10. I heave heard learned counsel for the appellants (Ram Lal alias Sri Kishan and Shiv Ram) at length, learned A.G.A. and perused the record,
11. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellants on the following decisions ;
1. Ram Sewak v. State (1999) 39 All Cri C 412 : 1999 Cri LJ 4680 : (1999 All LJ 2182),
2. Karam Singh v. State of U. P., (1.988) 25 All Cri C 352,
3. Ram Kishan v. State of U. P., 2000 (Supp) All Cri C 50 : 2000 Cri LJ 867 : (2000 All LJ 43),
4. Raghubir v. State of U. P., (1995) 32 All Cri C 216 : (1996 All LJ 551).
12. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the judgment under appeal mainly on the grounds that the prosecution came to the Court with a stereotyped story as usual and both the appellants were neither apprehended by the police nor any recovery of arms and ammunitions was made from their possession as alleged by the prosecution. It was pointed out that according to Fard recovery (Ex. Ka-1) as well as statement of the witnesses. Head Constable Hridai Narain and two constables Pati Ram and Samsher Bahadur Singh along with their arms were sent to the house of Ghasitey situate in village Rustampur to protect his life and properly. The Fard recovery Ex. Ka-1 bears signature of constable Samsher Bahadur Singh C.P. No. 319 also and this lacuna in the prosecution case goes to show that prosecution has not come with clean hands. How could Samsher Bahadur Singh be present on the spot at the time of arrest of the dacoits and sign Fard recovery. It was also urged that the talks amongst dacoits could not be heard by the police personnel who were sitting at a considerable distance and they were not expected to speak loudly. A Pharsa was alleged to have been recovered from the possession of Shiv Ram but the same was not sealed on the spot and no reason has been assigned.
13. Four public witnesses were included in the raiding party which succeeded in apprehending six dacoits on the spot. Out of the four public witnesses, three namely, Mullu, Kirpal Singh and Ram Swarup, were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Ram Swamp and Kirpal Singh were having their licensed guns and cartridges. Out of the three witnesses examined in the Court Mullu and Ram Swarup turned hostile and did not support prosecution story. P.W. 4 Kirpal Singh too supported the prosecution story halfheartedly. It was also urged that there are contradictions in the evidence led by the prosecution regarding place where the dacoits had assembled to commit dacoity. Lastly, it was contended that out of the six dacoits, four were having firearms, including guns and Tamanchas. They were having sixteen cartridges also. On the other hand, there were sufficient arms and ammunitions with the police force and public witnesses were also armed. However, neither the dacoits resorted to firing to avoid their arrest by the police nor the police personnel fired at the miscreants with a view to apprehend them and four dacoits ran away.
14. After having considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, I hold that contentions raised by the appellants' learned counsel are well founded and have force. Consequently, this appeal is liable to be allowed and appellants are entitled to be acquitted.
15. It is true that constable Samsher Bahadur Singh was deputed to the house of Ghasitey and he and two others were sent to village Rustampur. I further find that Samsher Bahadur Singh has signed the Fard recovery Ex. Ka-1 and there is no explanation as to how this happened. It is also correct that Pharsa recovered from the possession of Shiv Ram was not sealed for the reason best known to the S.O. and his subordinates. I further find that the police party took their position at a considerable distance from the Mango tree where the Gang of dacoits had assembled. However, the police personnel heard the conversation going on amongst the dacoits. I further find material contradictions in the testimony of P.W. 1 S.I. G. S. Tomar and P.W. 4 Kirpal Singh as to the number of dacoits who had assembled on the fateful night. P.W. 1 S.I. G. S. Tomar testified that ten dacoits in all reached there and sat under the Mango tree. On the other hand, P.W. 4 Kirpal Singh gave out that nine dacoits in all assembled under the Mango tree. He further demolished the prosecution case by saying that six miscreants were apprehended by the police on the spot and remaining three-four ran away towards south. Thus, I find that he has given contradictory statement regarding number of dacoits who had actually assembled there. P.W. 6 Ashok Kumar, the then S.O. and leader of the first party, gave a death blow to the prosecution case by saying that six dacoits in all had assembled there. Thus, there is material contradiction in the evidence regarding number of dacoits who had actually assembled under the Mango tree on the night in question. I further find force in the argument of the appellants learned counsel that why no firing was resorted by the miscreants to avoid their arrest. They were fully armed and could resist their arrest by the police but this was not done. This circumstance too further makes the prosecution version highly doubtful.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing its case against any of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The entire story seems to be highly doubtful. The recoveries of the arms and ammunitions from the possession of Ram Lal and Shiv Ram have also not been proved by reliable evidence. The public witnesses did not corroborate the testimony of police witnesses. In this view of the matter, I hold that this appeal has merit and both the appellants are entitled to be acquitted of all the charges.
17. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against appellants (Ram Lal alias Shri Kishan and Shiv Ram) are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges. Accused Ram Lal alias Shri Kishan is on bail and need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.
18. The appellant (Shiv Ram) is in jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not wanted in any other case.
19. Let a copy of this judgment be sent Jo Sessions Judge concerned for information and compliance.
20. A copy of this judgment shall also be sent at once by the Registry to the Superintendent of District Jail concerned for information and compliance.