Jatan Singh v. State Of U. P. — 1995 DIGILAW 785 (ALL)

JUDGMENT T.P.Garg, J. (1.) THIS appeal by Jatan Singh, son of Mahabir Singh Rajput, aged about 30 years, resident of village Beldra, P. S. Kandhala, District Muzaffarnagar, Is directed against the judgment dated 7.2.1979. passed by Sri A.L. Srivastava, Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, whereby he was convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 (Five) years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000, or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R I. for six months. (2.) THE accused-appellant alongwith Jabar Singh, Richpal, Krishanpal and Santa alias Santram and Mahabir Singh was charged under Section 395 of the I.P.C. for having looted on 13.8.1977 at about 7.15 p.m. Bus No. HRR 189 at puliya of village Beladra on Hardwar-Lakhnauti Road in the area of P. S. Badgaon along with certain other culprits. They were also charged under Section 397, I.P.C. for having used fire-arms and voluntarily causing hurt to the passengers of the said Bus. Richpal, Sant Pal and Mahabir accused were further charged under Section 412, I.P.C. for having been found in possession of looted property, viz. wrist-watches belonging to the passengers of the aforesaid Bus. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under: On 13.8.1977 Aman Ullah Khan. P.W. 1, working as Driver of Bus No. HRR 189, was taking the said Bus from BHEL, Hardwar to Lakhnauti. The Bus left Deoband at about 6. 45 p.m. for Gangoh. When the bus reached near village Beldra on a culvert at about 7.00 p.m., one of the culprits put his hand on the driver's waist. The moment the driver turned his head to see as to what was the matter, he found another person putting a revolver on his neck and asking him to stop the Bus. As directed by them, the driver stopped the Bus. The dacoits in the Bus snatched the wrist watch and certain amount of money from the driver and also started looting the passengers of the Bus. They also started firing. After removing the valuables from the possession of the passengers, the dacoits got down and made good their escape through sugar-cane fields. A number of Bus passengers were injured. Thereafter, the driver brought the Bus to Badgaon where F.I.R. Ext. Ka-5, was lodged. They also started firing. After removing the valuables from the possession of the passengers, the dacoits got down and made good their escape through sugar-cane fields. A number of Bus passengers were injured. Thereafter, the driver brought the Bus to Badgaon where F.I.R. Ext. Ka-5, was lodged. The Investigation Officer took up the investigation, took into possession various articles he found in the Bus and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The accused was arrested on 14.8.1977. Other accused were also arrested on different dates. He was put up for identification where he was correctly identified by as many as four eye-witnesses including the complainant. After completion of investigation the accused were sent up for trial. (3.) IN support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 22. The statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they denied the allegation and stated that it was a false case against them. They denied having travelled by the said Bus and participated in any such occurrence. Jatan Singh, appellant, further pleaded that he had gone to the house of Mahabir in village Dhoomgarh, where he had gone to bring the wife of his brother, Kant Pal. The accused examined two witnesses in their defence. (4.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge believing the prosecution version and disbelieving that of the accused held them guilty under Section 395, I.P.C. and sentenced them to R. I. for five years and a fine of Rs. 2,000 each, or in defalut of payment of fine, the defaulter will further undergo R. I. for six months. All the accused filed separate appeals challenging their conviction and sentence. However, during pendency of these appeals all the appellants, except Jatan Singh, the present appellant, expired and so Criminal Appeals Nos. 962 of 1979, 983 of 1979 and 1162 of 1979 abated vide orders dated 14.2.1995 and 16.4.1992, passed by this court. The present appeal is by Jatan Singh accused alone and he is lodged in Muzaffar nagar Jail on account of his having jumped bail. (5.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. (6.) JATAN Singh, accused-appellant, Is said to be armed with fire-arm with which he fired several shots aiming towards passengers In the Bus and injuring a number of them. (5.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. (6.) JATAN Singh, accused-appellant, Is said to be armed with fire-arm with which he fired several shots aiming towards passengers In the Bus and injuring a number of them. A country-made pistol was subsequently recovered from his possession at the time of his arrest and qua which he has been separately tried for and offence under the Arms Act. This accused was arrested on 14.8.1977. He was put up for identification by Driver of the Bus and other eye witnesses including the injured witnesses on 29.9.1977. Aman Ullah Khan, P. W. 1, the driver of the Bus, Raj Kumar, Narendra Kumar and Ram Chandra, P. Ws., have correctly identified him to be the culprit, who entered the Bus and committed the crime along with co-accused. Narendra Kumar, one of the eye-witnesses, who correctly Identified the accused Is an injured witness. He was medically examined on that very day and two fire-arm injuries were found on his person. This witness correctly identified the accused in a test-identification parade conducted by the Magistrate in the premises of the Jail. All these four witnesses have stated in unequivocal terms that it was the appellant, who along with the co-accused took over charge of the Bus after forcing the driver to stop the Bus, caused fire-arm injuries to a number of passengers and made away with the belongings of the passengers. Their testimony is consistent, cogent and convincing and the learned defence counsel has not been able to point out any discrepancy or flaw In their testimony which may go to discredit their evidence. They had no motive to falsely implicate the accused in any such crime. In fact, there is no previous enmity between the parties, nor any such plea has been raised by the accused. The witnesses also identified JATAN Singh, appellant, at the time of their evidence in the court. Under the circumstances, from the sworn testimony of all these P.Ws. the charge under Section 395,I.P.C. is proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In fact the learned defence counsel has not challenged the conviction of the accused on merits during the course of arguments at the Bar. The conviction of the accused is thus maintained. Under the circumstances, from the sworn testimony of all these P.Ws. the charge under Section 395,I.P.C. is proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In fact the learned defence counsel has not challenged the conviction of the accused on merits during the course of arguments at the Bar. The conviction of the accused is thus maintained. Even otherwise the conviction of the accused recorded by the Trial Judge is found to be based on a correct and proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record and there is no material before me nor anything has been pointed out by the learned defence counsel that may go to discredit the prosecution evidence. The F.I.R. in this case was lodged with all the promptness required into the matter in such a situation. The occurrence took place at about 7-15 p.m. The report Ext. Ka-5, was lodged at 8.00 p.m. on the same day. Thus, there was no inordinate delay in making the report by the driver of the Bus. Prompt lodging of the report further lends support to the story propounded therein. Moreover, the sworn testimony of the P.Ws., named above, has further corroborated the prosecution story as given in the F.I.R. and proves the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As many as six P.Ws. who were travelling in the Bus at that time, received firearm injuries. None of the eye-witnesses had any motive to falsely implicate the appellant or his co- accused. The witnesses have stated whatever occurrence took place in the evening of 13.8.1977 and all that happened thereafter on that day. None of them has shown any over zealousness or anxiety by introducing some extraneous fact in his testimony. Their evidence is natural and straightforward and has not been shaken in cross-examination. The defence version, on the other hand is in the nature of an excuse and has been rightly rejected by the Trial Judge. The conviction of the accused-appellant is, thus, maintained even on merits. The learned defence counsel has only prayed for a lenient view in the matter of sentence, as according to him the accused is in custody for the last about 5/6 months and he also remained in custody for a period of about two years during the trial of the case. I have given my careful consideration to the said submission. The learned defence counsel has only prayed for a lenient view in the matter of sentence, as according to him the accused is in custody for the last about 5/6 months and he also remained in custody for a period of about two years during the trial of the case. I have given my careful consideration to the said submission. The accused, presently, is in custody on account of his misusing the concession of bail during pendency of this appeal and his ball bonds were cancelled. No-doubt, he remained in custody for a period of about two years during the trial, but that does not make out a cogent ground to take a lenient view in the matter of sentence. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which highway robbery was committed by stopping the Bus full of passengers, causing fire-arm injuries to a number of them, and latter looting them, I do not think that the accused deserves any leniency in the matter of sentence. (7.) IN view of the foregoing, the appeal filed by Jatan Singh is dismissed and his conviction and sentence are both maintained. Appeal dismissed.