Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 642 (PNJ)

Nachhattar Singh v. State of Punjab

2003-05-05

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Nachattar Singh son of Gurdip Singh, Pritpal Singh Bittu son of Wassan Singh and Jagatjit Singh son of Joginder Singh the petitioners herein, were convicted under Section 393 Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment dated 12.5.1997 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default of payment to suffer further RI for 15 days. 2. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, they preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide his judgment dated 10.5.2000 confirmed their conviction and sentence. 3. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgments of both the Courts below, they have come up in revision before the Court. 4. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 27.1.1995 at about 9.00 PM Kartar Nath, who was running a shop in the name & style of "Dhawan Medicose", was present in his shop. Two young men came to his shop on a bicycle. The third young man stayed across the road. One of them was a Sikh gentlemen with a cream turban, who had wrapped himself in a brown Loi and was having a pistol in his hand. The other two persons were also standing nearby. The physiogomic description has been given by Kartar Nath in his statement. The Sikh gentleman asked Kartar Nath to take out the cash and hand over the same to him. One of them said to him, "in case he does not give, Bittu, you should shoot him". The son of Kartar Nath ran out of the shop and raised a noise. On hearing the noise, the petitioners left the spot. Incidently, the identity card of Nachhattar Singh alonwith a photograph was left there. A bicycle make Avon No. 8 was also left at the spot. His identity card number was 80896 PAP. From the photograph, it could be identified that it was Nachhattar Singh petitioner, who had a pistol in his hand and had come to commit the crime. 5. On the statement of Kartar Nath complainant, the police swung into action immediately. A bicycle make Avon No. 8 was also left at the spot. His identity card number was 80896 PAP. From the photograph, it could be identified that it was Nachhattar Singh petitioner, who had a pistol in his hand and had come to commit the crime. 5. On the statement of Kartar Nath complainant, the police swung into action immediately. Subsequently, the other two accused were arrested and a country made pistol .315 bore and a live cartridge of .315 were recovered from Pritpal Singh petitioner, whereas four live cartridges of .315 bore were recovered from Nachhattar Singh petitioner and a Khukhri was recovered from Jagjit Singh petitioner. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Kartar Nath PW1, Rajiv Dhawan PW2, SI Jasbir Singh PW3, SI Hardip Singh PW4 and Sub Inspector Inder Pal PW5. On a consideration of the whole evidence, the trial Court convicted all the three petitioners for the charge framed against them. 7. The learned fist appellate Court after re-scanning the entire evidence confirmed the conviction and sentences of the petitioner. 8. I have heard Mr. DS Pheruman, learned counsel of the petitioners, Mr. S.S. Gill, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and with their assistance I have perused the entire evidence. 9. Mr Pheruman has vehemently argued that the Courts below have not gone into the material lacuna that the prosecution has not been able to establish the identity of the petitioners inasmuch as the witnesses when stepped into the witness-box identified Pritpal Singh petitioner as Nachhattar Singh petitioner. According to Mr. Pheruman, it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to get the identification parade done after arrest of the petitioners. He has further contended that the prosecution story does not find corroboration from the independent source despite the fact that it has come in the statement of the witnesses that at the time of occurrence, some other persons were also standing nearby. In the same breath, the learned counsel submitted that the recovery of identity card is also a crude padding in order to implicate Constable Nacchattar Singh and that the testimony regarding this recovery has also not been corroborated from any independent witness. In the same breath, the learned counsel submitted that the recovery of identity card is also a crude padding in order to implicate Constable Nacchattar Singh and that the testimony regarding this recovery has also not been corroborated from any independent witness. According to the learned counsel, no occurrence had taken place as alleged and subsequently a colourful version has been brought forward in order to complete the chain and that similarly the alleged recovery of weapons and ammunition is also doubtful. 10. In the alternative, Mr. Pheruman prays that in the event of the conviction being maintained, the petitioners deserve concession in the quantum of sentence. 11. On the other hand, learned State counsel contends that the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the charge against all the three petitioners stands established beyond shadow of doubt and that thus the conviction should not be disturbed. On the quantum of sentence also, the petitioners do not deserve any concession, Mr. Gill so contends 12. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides, I am of the view that the submissions raised by Mr. Pheruman do not hold ground. 13. So far as identification of the petitioners is concerned, the learned trial Court has discussed this aspect in para 10 of the judgment at length. The identity card of Constable Nachhattar Singh was recovered from the place of occurrence itself and was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex. PB. This identity card has not been disputed by Nachhattar Singh petitioner. The learned first appellate Court has also observed in its judgment that no question was put to the prosecution witnesses to deny the recovery of the alleged identity card. The point of identification has been discussed in detail in paras 7 and 8 of its judgment by the appellate Court before coming to the conclusion that there is no dispute regarding identification of the petitioners. I agree with the observations of both the courts below in this regard and do no intend to disturb the finding on this count while sitting in revision. 14. So far as the other points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, the same have already been dealt with by the Courts below. I agree with the observations of both the courts below in this regard and do no intend to disturb the finding on this count while sitting in revision. 14. So far as the other points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, the same have already been dealt with by the Courts below. In my view the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt to the petitioners in respect of the charge under Section 393 Indian Penal Code. Consequently, there is no scope for disturbing the conviction as recorded by both the Courts below. On merits the petitioners have thus no case. 15. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, all the petitioners are police officials and if the enforcers of law become breakers of law, there would be no protection of law and property of the general public. Any sympathetic tilt shown towards them would certainly shake public faith in the Court of law and administration of justice. The three police officials in the present case have made an attempt to commit robbery, which really pricks the judicial conscious. In my view the learned trial Court has already adopted a very liberal approach by awarding the sentence of two years RI only and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, whereas the sentence under Section 393 Indian Penal Code may extend to seven years. There is thus no justification to reduce the sentences further. 16. As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, the present Revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. 17. All the petitioners shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining part of the substantive sentence. Revision dismissed.