Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Instant criminal appeals launch a challenge to the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

The factual matrix on which the prosecution version is founded is to the effect that on 03.07.2001, the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Kapurthala received secret information that accused-Gurpreet Singh, Manjit Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Sandeep Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Baldev Singh, who had committed robbery at the gas agency at Kanjli Road, Kapurthala, would assemble with weapons in a deserted brick-kiln in the area of village Rajapur. The secret informer further disclosed that the above named persons had a mind to commit dacoity at the petrol-pump and liquor vend and if a raid is conducted, such a dacoity could be prevented. On finding the information to be reliable, Sub Inspector Satnam Singh joined Darshan CRA-S-2125-SB-2003 and other connected appeals Singh, Panchayat Member in the police party and proceeded towards the said place. When the police party reached the said brick-kiln, Sub Inspector Satnam Singh overheard the conversation of the accused who were discussing to rob the petrol pump and liquor vend. The police party apprehended accused-Sandeep Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Manjit Singh and Gurpreet Singh while Balwant Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Baldev Singh ran way from the spot but were identified by Head Constable Jarnail Singh. From the personal search, .315 bore countrymade pistol with two live cartridges was recovered from accused- Gurpeet Singh, .12 bore countrymade pistol, which was loaded with live cartridges, was recovered from accused-Sandeep Singh, hand-pump handle (Hathiya) was recovered from accused-Sukhwinder Singh and one knife was recovered from accused-Manjit Singh. The accused were formally arrested and ruqua was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR was recorded. The articles recovered from the accused were taken into police possession vide separate recovery memos. During the course of investigation, accused suffered disclosure statements upon which the recovery was effected by the police. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, who vide order dated 01.10.2001, committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. The Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala framed the charges against all the accused under Sections 399/401/411 of IPC and also against accused-Sandeep Singh and Gurpreet Singh under Section 25 of the Act, to which they CRA-S-2125-SB-2003 and other connected appeals pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and meticulously perused the record.

Learned counsel for the appellants emphatically argued that in the light of evidence adduced by the prosecution, conviction of the appellants in no way is permissible and they are entitled to be acquitted. They further contended that the story put forward by the prosecution that Sub Inspector Satnam Singh, investigating officer, overheard the conversation of the accused while they were sitting in a deserted brick- kiln to the effect that they were planning to commit dacoity at the petrol CRA-S-2125-SB-2003 and other connected appeals pump and liquor vend, was most improbable and unnatural. They further submitted that the mere fact that the accused were allegedly found sitting in a brick-kiln with .315 bore countrymade pistol with two live cartridges, .12 bore countrymade pistol, which was loaded with live cartridges, hand-pump handle (Hathiya) and knife, did not mean that they had assembled there for making preparation to commit dacoity. They further submitted that the trial Court has acquitted the accused under Sections 399 IPC whereas convicted them under Section 402 of IPC on the same findings. Moreover, the accused were not charge- sheeted under Section 402 of IPC by the trial Court. As per the prosecution, Balwant Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Baldev Singh succeeded in running away from the spot but were identified by Head Constable Jarnail Singh. However, when Head Constable Jarnail Singh appeared into witness-box as PW 5, he did not utter even a single word about the identity of Balwant Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Baldev Singh. They further contended that Darshan Singh, Panchayat Member, who was allegedly joined in the investigation, was not examined by the prosecution and given up being won over by the accused. No other witness from the public was joined despite the fact that acting on a tip off, the police proceeded and the police had ample time to join some more witness from the public to join the investigation. They further contended that in the present case, complainant and investigating officer is the same person which also causes dents in the prosecution story. They further contended that the accused were allegedly armed with CRA-S-2125-SB-2003 and other connected appeals weapons, but they had not shown any resistance towards the police officials for their arrest. They further contended that the prosecution has failed to produce any cogent or reliable evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, therefore, the trial Court has erred in law while convicting the appellants. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence ought to be interfered with in the interest of justice.

He was also informed that accused were armed with weapons and if raid is conducted, they can be apprehended. Darshan Lal, Member Panchayat was joined in the police party and raid was conducted at the aforesaid place after parking the vehicle. He overheard that the accused were planning to commit a dacoity at petrol pump and liquor vend in village Kalasanghian. He further stated that except accused Kuldip Singh, Balwant Singh and Baldev Singh were apprehended at the spot while these three ran away who were identified by Head Constable Jarnail Singh. He further stated that .12 bore countrymade pistol alongwith two cartridges was recovered from the right pocket of pant of accused-Sandeep Singh. He prepared sketch Ex.PA and sealed the same with the seal 'SS' in a parcel and took into police possession vide recovery memo Ex.PA. The seal after its use was handed over to Darshan Lal. He further stated that from the possession of accused-Sukhwinder Singh, CRA-S-2125-SB-2003 and other connected appeals hathia (Datt) was recovered which was identified by him as Ex.P5. He further stated that one kirch Ex.P6 which was 11/14 inches in length was also recovered from the possession of accused-Manjit Singh and the same was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PB. From the possession of accused-Gurpret Singh, one countrymade pistol along with live cartridges was also recovered. He also stated that from the place, five vehicles were also recovered vide recovery memo Ex.PC.