Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1066 (PNJ)

Surinder v. State Of Haryana

2000-09-06

A.S.GARG, HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2000
Judgment A.S.Garg, J. 1. These criminal appeals i.e. Crl. A. 36-DB of 1996 filed by Surender and Bijender Singh, Crl. A. No. 186-DB of 1996 by Charan Singh and Crl. A. No. 245-DB of 1996 filed by Ramesh relate to an alleged robbery and murder and an attempt to murder alleged to have been committed by the appellants in a running train in the area of police Station, Government Railway Police Rohtak. As all these appeals arise out of the same judgment, these are disposed of by this order. 2. On 1.2.1994, Sushila Devi, PW14, along her brothers Purshotam and Yashbir boarded a train at Sakirbasti (Delhi) at 6.30 P.M. for coming to Rohtak for treatment of Yashbir in Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. When the train was in motion between Railway Stations Dehkora and Sampla, four unidentified and unknown persons description of whom are given in the report Ex. PD/1 allegedly entered into the compartment where Purshotam (deceased) along with Yashbir and Sushila Devi was sitting and one of the assailants stood near Purshotam and shouted to take out whatever they had in their possession. Purshotam asked him to wait. Meanwhile the said youngman again shouted upon Purshotam to hand over money and when Purshotam was in the process of handing over the money, the youngman with one hand snatched the money and gave a knife blow to the deceased in his abdomen. On receipt of the injury Purshotam fell down. Yashbir, PW.13 who was sitting by the side of Purshotam got up and proceeded towards that man and was able to caught hold of his hand in which he was having a knife. The other appellant fired a shot from the pistol hitting Yashbir, PW.13. Some of the pellets also hit Ashok Kumar another passenger. When the train slowed down near Sampla Railway Station, both the persons who had caused injuries got down from the compartment and fled away. With the help of Sajjan Singh, P.W.3, both Purshotam and Yashbir injured were removed to Civil Health Centre, Sampla and then to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. However, Purshotam succumbed to the injuries on the way to M.C.H. Rohtak. Udey Raj, PW.2, Assistant Station Master received a telephonic message from Control Room Delhi, with regard to the firing incident. He sent message Ex. PA to Station House Officer, Police Station, Government Railway Police, Rohtak. However, Purshotam succumbed to the injuries on the way to M.C.H. Rohtak. Udey Raj, PW.2, Assistant Station Master received a telephonic message from Control Room Delhi, with regard to the firing incident. He sent message Ex. PA to Station House Officer, Police Station, Government Railway Police, Rohtak. When the train reached Railway Station, Rohtak, the police officials were deputed to guard the compartment. SI Manohar Lal, PW.11, recorded the statement of Sushila Devi Ex. PB/1 on 1.2.1994 at Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak and making his endorsement Ex. PB/2 he sent the same to the police station for registration of a case and on its basis formal FIR Ex. PB/2 was recorded. SI Manohar Lal, PW.11, then went to Railway Station, Rohtak and inspected the compartment. He took into possession blood, pellets and empty cartridge from inside the compartment vide memos Ex. PR and PR/1. He also prepared inquest report Ex. PU. He also took into possession the clothes of the deceased and Yashbir, PW.13, vide recovery metros Ex. PN and PM respectively. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. 3. On 25.2.1994, Surender, Bijender and Charan Singh were arrested in FIR No. 55 of 1994 under Section 399/402 of the Indian Penal Code relating to Police Station, Kharkhoda by SI Sukhbir Singh, PW.15. On 26.2.1994, SI Ram Kumar, PW.17 went to Police Station, Kharkhoda and arrested them in this case. All the three accused were produced before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, at Sonepat in muffled faces where they refused to participate in the test identification parade. Thereupon the Magistrate passed order Ex. PDD. On 28.2.1994, Surender accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex. PAA got recovered 12 bore country made pistol from the place specified by him which was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Thereafter Bijender Singh in pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex. PZ got recovered a knife stained with blood and the same was taken into possession vide recovery memo. A separate ruqa was sent to Police Station, G.R.P. Rohtak, for registration of a case under Section 25 of the Arms Act against Surender accused. Thereafter Ramesh accused was arrested on 3.3.1994 on receipt of message from Sonepat that he had confessed the commission of offence in this case while he was in custody in FIR No. 61 of 1994 under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Thereafter Ramesh accused was arrested on 3.3.1994 on receipt of message from Sonepat that he had confessed the commission of offence in this case while he was in custody in FIR No. 61 of 1994 under Section 25 of the Arms Act. He was also produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat with muffled face. Later on he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate with muffled face where he refused to join the test identification parade. At the trial the learned trial Judge believing the prosecution story, convicted Surender appellant under Sections 302 and 394 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 394 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the sentences of the imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Ramesh, Bijender and Charan Singh appellants were convicted under Section 394 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Bijender appellant was, however, acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After a close scrutiny of evidence on record and appreciation thereof we are not inclined to agree with the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge. It has come in the statement of PW.3 Yashbir the injured in this case who was being taken in the said train by the others for further treatment as he had met with an accident earlier and some medical consultation was required, claimed that his brother Purshotam deceased was asked by the accused persons to hand over all the valuable belongings he had with him. The witness specifically claimed that Surender appellant-accused was wielding a knife and gave a blow with the same in the abdomen of his brother Purshotam. This witness caught hold of the knife. He claimed that he can, recognise and identify Surender to be the same person who had given knife blow about 20 months earlier to the recording of the statement of this witness. So it is already mentioned that the recovery from Surender is shown to be that of a country made pistol and not knife. He admitted that the compartment in which he was travelling was jam packed with passengers. So it is already mentioned that the recovery from Surender is shown to be that of a country made pistol and not knife. He admitted that the compartment in which he was travelling was jam packed with passengers. He claimed that Ramesh fired at this witness but no recovery is alleged to have been effected from Ramesh. The time of the occurrence is that of sun set in the month of February. The witness was suggested that the accused persons were shown to him and others by the police but the witness denied the suggestion. 5. Sushila Devi, PW.14, is the other witness who was travelling with the deceased and the injured and she also described the occurrence. She stated that the other boys along with Surender and Ramesh were also holding knives. The witness admitted that the police officials were making enquiries from them, time and again, about the occurrence and about the identity of the assailants. So the discoveries and recoveries of weapons are totally in disarray. The police was still showing the photographs of various other people to the witnesses in order to ascertain their identity before the accused were arrested. No identification parade has been held to establish the real names of the assailants. 6. The argument of the learned Deputy Advocate General, has been that once the assailants refused to join the identification parade, there would be a presumption that they themselves were involved and none else. The Court cannot feel complacent and convinced because one person has lost life and other escaped death, about the participation of certain persons named by the police in a crime unless they are connected with the commission of the crime undoubtedly without the least shadow of doubt. As already discussed above when the identification of the appellants has taken place in Court after about two years of the occurrence for the first time and the statements of the witnesses of the occurrence are contrary to the recoveries of weapons from the appellants, it would not be safe to sustain the conviction of the appellants which may result into miscarriage of justice. Hence, it is sufficient to say that the appellants deserve the benefit of doubt. The appeals filed by the appellants are allowed and the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them.