Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The case of the prosecution as emerging from the records, in brief, is that in the year 2000, murder of Sri Ran Veer Singh Sengar, Advocate of Etawah, his wife and two daughters was committed. Deceased Suresh Pal Singh @ Guddu and injured Sunil were facing trial in the case of those murders and they both were lodged in Jail as undertrials. Suresh Pal Singh was the husband of one deceased daughter. Rekha Sengar, the only surviving daughter of Sri Ran Veer Singh Sengar, wanted to take revenge of murders of her family members from Suresh Pal Singh and Suneel. When, being the legal heir, Rekha Sengar instituted the case for succession certificate in Civil Court, ptawah, Suresh Pal Singh being the husband of deceased daughter of Sri Ran Veer Singh Sengar filed objections in that case. Then, Rekha Sengar determined to eliminate Suresh Pal Singh. She was having intimacy with Bhartiya Sahgal @ Mannu, owner of IVORY Palace Hotel, Karol Bagh; New Delhi. Rekha Sengar approached Bhartiya Sahgal @ Mannu, who had connections with international Don Chhota Rajan. Bhartiya Sahgal contracted Chhota Rajan, who on his request sent the appellants-accused to Etawah to kill Suresh Pal Singh @ Guddu and Suneel. It is alleged that on 23.10.2002,Suresh Pal Singh @ Guddu and Sunil along with other under-trial prisoners were brought from the District Jail, Etawah to attend the Courts. At about 12.30 p.m. C.P. 953 Shiv Das, H.C.(P) 14 A.P. Shiv Baran Singh, Constable 21 A.P. Angrez Singh, Constable 131 A.P., Chandresh Singh, Constable 168 AP Hari Prasad and Constable 310 C.P. Gangadhar Singh had carried sixteen under-trial prisoners including Suresh Pal Singh and Sunil from the Court's lock-up to produce them in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (1st) Etawah. After producing them in Court, when they were being brought to the lock-up and reached on the tiraha near the corner of the rooms of Civil Lawyers at about 3.45 p.m., 6-7 miscreants having firearms came from ahead and with intention to commit murder, they began to fire on Suresh Pal Singh and Sunil, due to which they both sustained injuries and fell down there. When C.P. Shiv Das and H.C.(P) Shiv Baran Singh moved ahead for apprehending the miscreants, they with a view to cause their death fired on them, due to which Shiv Baran Singh sustained fire arm injury in left thigh, but Shiv Das escaped narrowly. Court Peon Ghan Shyam Singh, who was passing from there, was also injured by a shot. This incident caused commotion in Court premises. The lawyers and other people began to rush to save their lives. Law and order was totally collapsed. Constable Bhola Singh, Satya Pal Singh and Ajai Kumar, who were posted in Special Operation Group (S.O.G.), were performing their duty in Court premises. On hearing the sounds of fires, they rushed towards the place of incident and saw that the miscreants making fires fled away towards Idgah, Etawah, sitting in Maruti car No. DL-2CM-9066, which was standing duly started near kadam tree. After going away of the miscreants, the injured Suresh Pal Singh, Sunil, Shiv Baran Singh and Ghan Shyam Singh were carried to District Hospital, Etawah, where injured Suresh Pal Singh was declared dead. Constables Bhola Singh, Satya Pal Singh and Ajai Kumar Singh chased the miscreants to some distance on feet, but they fled away. Thereafter, these S.O.G. Constables alongwith Om Singh Chandel, brother of the deceased Suresh Pal Singh, rushed to the residence of S.S.P., Etawah and informed S.O.G. Incharge S.I. Chhatrapati Singh about the incident, who immediately gave information to District Control Room and informed S.S.P., Etawah, Dr. G.K. Goswami. At the same time, a secret information was received on telephone by S.S.P., Etawah that the miscreants of Chhota Rajan gang after making indiscriminate firing in Court premises are making efforts to flee away towards Gwalior through Maruti Car No DL-2CM-9066. On this information, S.S.P. Etawah informed the Station Officers of all the Police Stations and Circle Officers on R.T. Set to surround the miscreants. S.S.P. Etawah himself along with S.O.G. Incharge S.I. Chhatrapati Singh, S.I. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, S.H.O. P.S. Kotwali, Etawah, Sri Som Dutt Sharma and other police force sitting in police vehicles began to chase the miscreants. S.O.G. Constables Bhola Singh, Satya Pal Singh and Ajai Kumar also sat in the vehicle of S.O.G. Incharge Chhatrapati Singh. When the vehicle of miscreants was going towards Gwalior side, the then Co., Jaswant Nagar Ashok Kumar Verma and S.O. P.S. Badhpura S.I. M.S. Chauhan alongwith police force came from opposite direction in their vehicles. Seeing those vehicles, the miscreants turned their Maruti vehicle quickly towards Kaliwahan temple, due to which the vehicle turned down. Thereafter, all the miscreants came out from their vehicle and with the intention to cause the death of police personnel, they began to fire indiscriminately and tried to flee away in jungle (beehad), but at a distance of about fifteen paces from Mahisasur temple, three miscreants were apprehended at about 4.30 p.m. S.O.G. Constables Bhola Singh, Satya Pal and Ajai Kumar as well as Om Singh, brother of deceased Suresh Pal Singh, seeing those miscreants immediately recognized them and told that they have injured Suresh Pal Singh etc. by making indiscriminate firing in Court premises. CO. Jaswant Nagar Sri Ashok Kumar Verma and S.O. P.S. Badhpura Sri M.S. Chauhan with other police personnel chased other miscreants and apprehended two out of them. On personal search of the apprehended miscreants, one pistol 455 bore having two cartridges in magazine and one cartridge in barrel from appellant-accused Rajan @ Kalia Rajan, one pistol 32 bore bearing No. 117749 having two cartridges in magazine and one cartridge in barrel from the accused-appellant Firoz Taiyyab Tanashah and one revolver 38 bore (smith and basin mark) bearing No. V-305949 having one live and five empty cartridges 38 bore in chamber from Chandrakam, Sitaram Gurav were recovered. Datta Sripati Pandare and Sushil Suresh Karkhanis, who were apprehended by CO. Jaswant Nagar and S.O. P.S. Badhpura also were brought at the place of aforesaid recovery. On their personal search, four live cartridges 38 bore from the pocket of pant of the appellant-accused Datta Sripati Pandare and six live cartridges of 32 bore from the pocket of pant of the accused-appellant Sushil Suresh Karkhanis were recovered. Recovery memo of the recovered articles was got scribed by S.S.P. Etawah from S.I. Chhatrapati Singh. Thereafter, the recovered articles were sealed on the spot and after effecting the arrest of the appellants-accused, they were brought to P.S. Kotwali, Etawah. Further case of the prosecution is that when police custody remand of the appellants-accused Sushil Suresh Karkhanis and Datta Sripati Pandare was granted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, they were carried to the beehad on 06.11.2002 by S.I. K.N. Pandey and other police personnel for making recovery of arms, which were told to have been thrown away by these accused at the time of fleeing away and on the pointing out of the appellant-accused Sushil Suresh Karkhanis, one pistol 32 bore bearing No. 33032402 with one cartridge in the barrel was recovered at about 4.30 p.m. vide recovery memo Ext. Ka-1 of S.T. No. 73 of 2003, Photostat copies of the registration certificate and insurance of Maruti Vehicle No. DL-2CM-9066 are also said to have been recovered on the pointing out of appellant-accused Datta Sripati Pandare at about 4.45 p.m.

33. Constables Bhola Singh, Satpal Singh and Ajai Kumar, who have been examined as P.W. 1, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 respectively in S.T. No. 51 of 2003, were posted in Special Operation Group of S.S.P., Etawah. These witnesses have stated that on 23.10.2002 prior to the alleged incident, they were performing duty in Etawah Court and when on hearing the sound of firing, they rushed to the place of incident, they saw that the appellants-accused making fires fled away sitting in Maruti Vehicle No. DL-2CM-9066. It is further stated by these witnesses that they chased the assailants to some distance on feet and when they fled away, they rushed to the residence of S.S.P., Etawah and informed Incharge S.O.G. S.I. Chhatrapati Singh, who immediately gave information to District Control Room and also informed Dr. G.K. Goswami, the then S.S.P., Etawah. It is also stated by these witnesses that they also had chased the assailants with S.S.P., Etawah and other police force and when the vehicle of miscreants turned down on turning the vehicle towards Kaliwahan temple, and the assailants were trying to flee away making fires on the police personnel after coming out from the vehicle, they were chased and the appellants-accused present in Court were apprehended in beehad. Seeing the appellants-accused in Court at the time of their examination, the witnesses have stated that these accused had fled away in the Maruti vehicle after committing the incident of firing in Court premises, Etawah on 23.10.2002 and they were arrested in beehad after chasing them and on their search illicit arms and cartridges were recovered from them. Lengthy cross-examination has been made from these witnesses on behalf of the appellants-accused, but nothing material to discredit their testimony has been elicited from them. Drawing our attention towards the statements of P.W. 8 Hari Prasad and P.W. 12 Gangadhar Singh, it was vehemently contended by learned Counsel for the appellants that there was no occasion for the Constables Bhola Singh, Satpal and Ajai Kumar to see the faces of appellants-accused in Court premises, Etawah, at the time of incident of firing, because according to the witnesses Hari Prasad and Gangadhar Singh, these S.O.G. Constables had reached the place of occurrence after going away of the assailants from there and on this ground the testimony of these S.O.G. Constables does not render any help to the prosecution in establishing the complicity of the appellants-accused in the alleged incident. We are not impressed with this submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants-accused. Although the witness Hari Prasad and Gangadhar Singh have stated in their statements that S.O.G. vehicle had reached the place of incident in Court premises after the incident, but from their statements also, this fact is borne out that S.O.G. Constables Bhola Singh, Satyapal Singh and Ajai Kumar had chased the miscreants while they were fleeing away sitting in Maruti Vehicle. On the basis of the reliable testimony of these S.O.G. Constables, it is fully proved beyond reasonable doubt that they had chased the appellants-accused with other police force and on turning down of Maruti Vehicle, the appellants-accused were apprehended by the police and when in their presence, personal search of the appellants was made, illicit arms and cartridges were recovered from them.

47. Having regard to the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid cases, interference by this Court in the impugned Judgment cannot be made merely due to absence or weakness of motive, as the complicity of the appellants-accused in the alleged incident has been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution.

48. Certain lapses on the part of Investigating Officers were also brought to our notice by the learned Counsel for the appellants. The main submission made in this regard was that the damaged Maruti vehicle was not got technically examined by the Investigating Officers during investigation, which is serious lapse on their part and it makes the entire case doubtful. In this regard, it was further submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that the damaged Maruti vehicle was not taken into possession by the Investigating Officer and no recovery memo was prepared in this regard, which is also fatal to the case of prosecution. Although the Investigating Officers were negligent in not taking the damaged Maruti Vehicle into possession and getting it technically examined, but due to these lapses on the part of Investigating Officers, case of prosecution cannot be thrown out, because it is well settled principle of law that due to any latches or lapse s on the part of Investigating Officer, reliable evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be brushed aside. As stated earlier also, the complicity of the appellants-accused in the alleged incident of firing in Court premises, Etawah on the alleged date, time and place and in the same transaction their arrest and recovery from them of illicit arms and cartridges has been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution. Hence, benefit of any lapses or latches on the part of Investigating Officer cannot be extended to the appellants-accused.

52. The third case giving rise to criminal appeal No. 1428 of 2006 relates to the recovery of 32 bore pistol with one live cartridge in barrel on 06.11.2002 from beehad on the pointing out of the appellant-accused Sushil Suresh Karkahnis during police custody remand. In order to prove the recovery of the pistol and cartridge on the pointing out o the appellant Sushil Suresh Karkhanis, the prosecution has examined S.I. K.N. Pandey and S.I. Om Veer Singh Rana as P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 respectively in S.T. No. 73 of 2003. Although, the learned Trial Court placing reliance on the testimony of these witnesses has convicted the appellant-accused Sushil Suresh Karkhanis under Section 25(1B)(a) and Section 27(1) Arms Act vide impugned Judgment of aforesaid Session Trial, but after careful scrutiny of entire evidence and keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, conviction of the appellant-accused Sushil Suresh Karkhanis in this Session Trial is not justified, because the testimony of aforesaid witnesses does not inspire confidence. According to the case of the prosecution, the appellants-accused Sushil Suresh Karkhanis and co-accused Datta Sripati Pandare were taken into police custody by the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah on 25.10.2002 cad they remained in custody of S.I. K.N. Pandey till 6. 1 1.2002. S.I. K.N. Pandey was investigating the case of crime No. 596 of 2002 of P.S. Civil Lines Etawah and during investigation of that case, he is alleged to have recovered pistol 32 bore with one live cartridge on 06.11.2002 on the pointing out of the appellant Sushil Suresh Karkhanis. Photostat copy of the registration certificate and insurance of Maruti Vehicle No. DL-2CM-9066 are also said to have been recovered on aforesaid date on the pointing out of the co-accused Datta Sripati Pandare. It has come in the statement of S.I. K.N. Pandey, P.W. 13 in S.T. No. 51 of 2003 that the accused Sushil Suresh Karkhanis and Datta Sripati Pandare remained in custody during police custody remand between 25.10.2002 to 06.11.2002. Prior to 06.11.2002, no recovery of any weapon was made oi the pointing out of these accused. S.I. K.N. Pandey has stated in his statement as P.W. 13 in S.T. No. 51 of 2003 that he had carried both the accused to bee had on 25.10.2002 for making recovery and search was made behind Mahisasur temple in beehad. Admittedly, no recovery was made on 25.10.2002. Thereafter, S.I. K.N. Pardey did not carry the accused for making recovery till 05.10.2002 and after a gap of about 12 days, the accused Sushil Suresh Karkhanis and Datta Sripati Pandare are said to have been carried again to beehad on 06.11.2002 and at that time recovery of 32 bore pistol and one live cartridge on the pointing out of the appellant Sushil Suresh Karkhani; is said to have been made, although no recovery was made in the beehad on 25.10.2002 at the time of making search in presence of both the accused. When arrest of the appellants-accused was made on 23.10.2002 in the beehad, then also search was made to recover the weapons in the beehad, but in vain. In this regard, reference may be made to the statement of S.I. M.S. Chauhan, the then S.O. P.S. Badhpura, who has been examined as P.W. 6 in S.T. No. 72 of 2003. It is stated by S.I. M.S. Chauhan in his statement as P.W. 6 in S.T. No. 72 of 2003 that at the time of arrest, the accused Datta Sripati Pandare and Sushil Suresh Karkhanis had told that they have thrown away their weapons in the bushes. It is further stated by this witness that search was made to recover the weapons, but no recovery could be made. When search to recover the weapons in the beehad on 23.10.2002 just after arrest of the appellants-accused Datta Sripati Pandare and Sushil Suresh Karkhanis was made and thereafter on 25.10.2002 also S.I. K.N. Pandey in presence of these accused made search in beehad, but no recovery of any weapon was made on both these days, then it is very difficult to believe that after a gap of about twelve days, 32 bore pistol and papers of Maruti Vehicle were recovered from the same place on the pointing out of the appellants-accused Sushil Suresh Karkhanis and Datta Sripati Pandare. Therefore, having regard to all these facts, it is not safe to place reliance on the statements of S.I. K.N. Pandey and S.I. Om Veer Singh Rana recorded in S.T. No. 73 of 2003 regarding the recovery of pistol and papers of Maruti Vehicle of 06.11.2002 on the pointing out of the aforesaid appellants-accused. It is worthwhile to mention that according to the statement of S.I. K.N. Pandey recorded as P.W. 13 in S.T. No. 51 of 2003, no fresh disclosure statement was made by the accused Sushil Suresh Karkhanis and Datta Sripati Pandare on 06.11.2002 for the recovery of any weapon etc. It is also worth mentioning that no particular place of throwing away the weapons was told by these accused to the Investigating Officer S.I. K.N. Pandey. The accused Datta Sripati Pandare is not the owner of the aforesaid Maruti Vehicle. Hence, it is very difficult to believe the story of throwing away the papers of Maruti Vehicle and their recovery from beehad on the pointing out of the accused Datta Sripati Pandare. Consequently, the conviction and sentence of the appellant-accused Sushil Suresh Karkhanis under Section 25(1B)(a) and 27(1) Arms Act in S.T. No. 73 of 2003 is liable to be set-aside.