Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

1995 DIGILAW 257 (SC)

Jagdish v. State Of Haryana

1995-02-14

FAIZAN UDDIN, S.B.MAJMUDAR

body1995
(1) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 17/05/1989. passed by the Additional Judge, Designated court, Bhiwani at Hissar convicting the appellant under Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987(here in after referred to as the TADA Act) read with Section 25 of the Arms Act for which the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. (2) ACCORDING to the prosecution, in the afternoon of 31/07/1988, when Saijan Kumar PW-1, along with one Kedar Nath-PW-3. was going to village Sirsa in Rajasthan, the appellant along with one Nagina and one more person stopped them at the point of pistol.Kedar Nath was commanded to part with his valuables. After looting them, the appellant and his companions went towards Rajasthan. Sajjan Kumar. PW-1 went to village Chuli Khurd where he raised raula attracting several villagers who chased the appellant and his companions. In the field of one Bhishm Pal in village Chuli Khurd itself, the appellant and his companions were apprehended by the villagers and Sajjan Kumar. The country made pistol was taken from the possession of the appellant and produced before the Police Inspector. The said pistol was taken into possession by Randhir Singh PW-2, the S. H. O. vide Ex. P-A. After taking possession of the said arm, it was sealed by him. On the basis of FIR No. 97 an offence under Section 392/307 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the offence under Section 5 of TADA Act read with Section 25 of the Arms Act were registered. The appellant and his companions were separately tried by Sessions court under Section 392/307. The appellant was tried before the Designated court for the offence under Section 5 of TADA read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. After trial, the appellant was convicted under Section 5 of TADA read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced as said earlier. (3) THE learned counsel for the appellant assailed the evidence of Sajjan Kumar PW-1, and Kedar Nath PW-3, by contending that they are not reliable witnesses but have falsely implicated the appellant in the alleged offence. (4) WE have carefully scrutinised the evidence of Sajjan Kumar and Kedar Nath. (3) THE learned counsel for the appellant assailed the evidence of Sajjan Kumar PW-1, and Kedar Nath PW-3, by contending that they are not reliable witnesses but have falsely implicated the appellant in the alleged offence. (4) WE have carefully scrutinised the evidence of Sajjan Kumar and Kedar Nath. They have categorically stated that the appellant had placed his pistol on the chest of Kedar Nath and commanded him to part with his valuables, and thereafter the appellant and his companions made their way towards Rajasthan, He went to the village and raised a ruula as a result of which several villagers were collected and all of them collectively chased the appellant. The appellant and his companion Nagina were over-powered in the field of Bhishm Pal and thereafter the pistol was taken from the possession of the appellant. Same is the evidence of Kedar Nath. PW-3. Nothing could be elicited from any of these witnesses so us lo doubt their testimony. These two witnesses do not bear any enmity against the appellant, and therefore, it cannot be accepted that they had any motive to falsely implicate the appellant in the crime. The evidence of police inspector Randhir Singh, PW-2 further goes to show that Sajjan Kumar. PW-1 had produced the country made pistol. 315 bore which was snatched from the possession of the appellant which he had seized and sealed. In the facts and circumstances the Designated court was justified in convicting the appellant under Section 5 of TADA read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. No case for any interference is made out. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the findings recorded in this appeal will have no bearing on the merits of appeal of the appellant pending against his conviction under Section 392/ 307. in the High court. The bail-bonds of the appellant are cancelled. He is directed to surrender forthwith.