Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

B. The second submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the only evidence which connects the appellant with the crime(s) with which he was charged is the testimony of the police officials and that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of the police officials to sustain the conviction of the appellant particularly when despite the fact many persons were present at the spot at the time of the incident as deposed by the prosecution witnesses namely HC Ram Kumar PW-5, Const.Devender Singh PW-6, ASI Hukum Chand PW-19 and Inspector M.L. Sharma PW-24, not a single public witness has been examined by the prosecution. Counsel lastly submitted that there are material discrepancies in the evidence of the police officials which further makes it unsafe to rely on their evidence. The first discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel was that HC Ram Kumar PW-5, deposed that when he and Const.Devender Singh reached the spot the deceased told them that the appellant was attempting to snatch his wallet and fired a shot at him whereas Const.Devender Singh deposed that when he and HC Ram Kumar reached the spot the deceased was unconscious and that the public persons told them that the appellant was attempting to snatch the wallet of the deceased and fired a shot at him. The second discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel was that HC Ram Kumar PW-5, Const.Devender Singh PW-6, ASI Hukum Chand PW-19 and Inspector M.L. Sharma PW-24, deposed that public persons were present at the spot around the time of the incident whereas Const.Rajiv Kumar PW-23 and SI Rajpal Singh PW-24, have not deposed a word about the presence of public persons around the time of the incident.

30. This takes us to the discrepancies pointed out by the counsel in the evidence of the police officials.

31. A conjunctive reading of the testimony of HC Ram Kumar PW-5 and Const.Devender Singh PW-6, brings out that somebody did tell them that the appellant had attempted to snatch the wallet of the deceased and that he fired a shot at the deceased. The only discrepancy pertains to the person who gave them the said information, which discrepancy can be dealt with reference to the MLC Ex.PW-9/A of the deceased. As already noted herein above, the MLC Ex.PW-9/A of the deceased records that the deceased was in a semi-conscious state at the time of his admission in the hospital and that he told the doctor that he has been shot by an unknown person. Both HC Ram Kumar PW-5 and Const.Devender Singh have deposed that many persons were present at the spot at the time when they reached there. It is quite possible that due to commotion at the spot Const.Devender Kumar PW-6, did not notice that the deceased was semi-conscious and that he was mumbling something. It is also possible that public persons who were present at the spot were saying that the appellant had fired a shot at the deceased and that HC Ram Kumar PW-6 felt that the deceased was also mumbling the same thing. In such circumstances, the first discrepancy pointed out by learned counsel does not dent the case of the prosecution. When read in light of the MLC Ex.PW-9/A there is sustenance in the claim of HC Ram Kumar that the deceased was conscious and told him that the person who was running away was the one who had shot at him while attempting to rob him.

34. Having dealt with the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, we proceed to consider that whether the prosecution has been successful in establishing the guilt of the appellant.

35. The success of the case of the prosecution against the appellant depends upon the evidence of HC Ram Kumar PW-5 and Const.Devender Singh PW-6. HC Ram Kumar PW-5 and Const.Devender Singh PW-6 were cross-examined at length but nothing could be elicited therefrom which could cast a doubt on their veracity. The presence of HC Ram Kumar and Const.Devender Singh at the spot around the time of the incident is confirmed from the testimony of ASI Hukum Chand PW-19, Const.Rajiv Kumar PW-23, Inspector M.L.Sharma PW-24 and SI Rajpal Singh PW-25, which witnesses have withstood the test of cross-examination. Not only that, the evidence of the witnesses; ASI Hukum Chand PW-19, Const.Rajiv Kumar PW-23, Inspector M.L.Sharma PW-24 and SI Rajpal Singh PW- 25, in particular the deposition of ASI Hukum Chand PW-19, who was the first police officer to have come at the spot after the arrival of HC Ram Kumar and Const.Devender Kumar at the spot, that he had seen public persons, HC Ram Kumar and Const.Devender Kumar grappling with the appellant lends due corroboration to the evidence of HC Ram Kumar and Const.Devender Singh. The fact that the endorsement Ex.PW- 25/A, contents whereof have been noted in para 2 above, which document was prepared soon after the occurrence, records that HC Ram Kumar and Const.Devender Singh were present at the spot soon after the occurrence and that HC Ram Kumar handed over the custody of the appellant and one country made pistol, two live cartridges and one empty cartridge to SI Rajpal Singh leads a very strong inference that HC Ram Kumar PW-5 and Const.Devender Singh PW-6, are truthful witnesses.

36. A careful reading of the evidence of HC Ram Kumar PW-5, and Const.Devender Singh PW-6, brings out following facts namely:- (i) HC Ram Kumar and Const.Devender Singh arrived at the spot within few minutes of the occurrence where they saw that the public persons were chasing the appellant;

(ii) someone told HC Ram Kumar and Const.Devender Singh when they arrived at the spot that the appellant had attempted to snatch the wallet of the deceased and that he shot the deceased when he tried to resist him; (iii) public persons apprehended the appellant within few minutes of the occurrence; (iv) the appellant was carrying a country made pistol in his hand at the time of his apprehension and an empty cartridge was found in the barrel of the pistol. The aforesaid facts when coupled with the fact that the injuries found on the person of the deceased was caused by firearm leads to only one conclusion that the appellant had murdered the deceased while attempting to commit robbery. It may be noted that while examining the police officers who had reached the spot and claimed that the appellant was apprehended at the spot itself have not been put any question in cross-examination that the appellant was actually picked up from outside his house and the pistol containing a fired cartridge and two live cartridges were planted on him. It is apparent that the said defence of appellant taken up for the first time when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is an afterthought.