Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1159 (ALL)

STATE OF U. P. v. RAJENDRA

2014-04-10

HARSH KUMAR, UMA NATH SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records of Government Appeal. 2. This State Appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.10.1981 passed by Shri S.C. Srivastava, the then Second Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, whereby in sessions trial No. 260 of 1979 under Section 489-A, 489-C and 489-D of the Indian Penal Code, he has recorded acquittal. 3. Prosecution case in brief is that Sub Inspector of Police Shahabuddin Chaudhary (PW-2) on 10.7.1977 went to village Jaan Khera in connection with the investigation of Case Crime No. 107 registered at Police Station Rampur Maniharaan (Saharanpur) under Section 489 IPC. One Ishwar resident of village Kudana, said to be an accused in Case Crime No. 107, was arrested and from his possession four currency notes of 100 rupee denomination each were recovered. They were found to be counterfeit. During the course of interrogation of Ishwar, it was revealed that the said notes had been passed on to him by one Rajendra Singh for circulation in the market and he was to receive 30% commission of the value of currency for that. He also informed the police Sub Inspector that accused Rajendra Singh was the person who used to print fake currency notes. The police Sub Inspector (PW-2), thus, also searched the place of accused Rajendra Singh on the same day at 6.30 pm on being pointed out by accused Ishwar. Certain incriminating materials used for printing counterfeit currency; counterfeit currency and one DBBL gun with five cartridges, were recovered. Accused Rajendra Singh was, thus, arrested and taken to Police Station Shamli, where on the oral complaint of Sub-Inspector of Police Shahabuddin Chaudhary (PW-2), the report of incident (Exhibit Ka-4) was registered in the night intervening 10th and 11th July, 1977 at 1.05 am under Section 489-A, 489-C and 489-D IPC. After completing investigation, the charge-sheet was put up against the accused. The seized currency notes were sent to India Security Press, Nasik, for examination and expert opinion. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. Out of 8 witnesses, only one witness, namely, Kaliram (PW-1) is a public witness and the rest are official ones. There is no bar in placing reliance on the testimony of official witnesses. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. Out of 8 witnesses, only one witness, namely, Kaliram (PW-1) is a public witness and the rest are official ones. There is no bar in placing reliance on the testimony of official witnesses. However, accused Rajendra Singh has taken the defence plea that he was implicated at the instance of one police Inspector Tikaram Malik, said to be brother of Balbir a witness to the search of his house. According to the accused, Jaipal and another witness to the search, Chandan, were accused in the murder case of his father. It is also his plea that police Sub Inspector Shahabuddin Chaudhary (PW-2) was posted under Inspector Tikaram Malik at the same police station, namely, Pasu, in district Bulandshahr on 5.1.1976 where Shri Tikaram Malik had been given the charge of police station as Station Officer. This fact is reflected in the statement of DW-1 Suresh Chandra, who had brought the police office record of Bulandshahr as well as that of one Balbir Singh son of Chaudhary Phool Singh (DW-2) who stated that Inspector Tikaram Malik son of Shankar Singh belonged to his village and witness to search Balbir Singh is his real brother. Jaipal son of Naubat and Harveer son of Phallu are first cousins of Inspector Tikaram Malik. As referred to earlier, Jaipal is also one of the accused in the murder of father of the accused. The fact of posting of Inspector Tikaram Malik with PW-2 is also admitted by him in the cross-examination. Besides, Kaliram, the solitary public witness has turned hostile. Thus, we need to examine the testimony of official witnesses closely. Such scrutiny is also required in the light of settled principles of law that when two views are possible, the one in favour of acquittal has to be accepted as the reasonable and probable view. 5. Kaliram (PW-1) who turned hostile has admitted that he knew accused Rajender Singh from before. However, he has denied that he had accompanied the police party to the house of accused Rajender Singh during the course of search and seizure of the incriminating materials. He has also stated that his signatures were obtained on blank papers by the police. 5. Kaliram (PW-1) who turned hostile has admitted that he knew accused Rajender Singh from before. However, he has denied that he had accompanied the police party to the house of accused Rajender Singh during the course of search and seizure of the incriminating materials. He has also stated that his signatures were obtained on blank papers by the police. He has also stated that the father of accused Rajendra Singh had been murdered and Jaipal, cousin of Balbir and Inspector Tikaram Malik, was one of the accused. He has denied his statement noted by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. S.I. Shahabuddin Chaudhary has supported the prosecution case that when he was posted at police station Rampur Maniharaan, district Saharanpur on 10.7.1977, he had arrested one Ishwar of village Kudana an accused in Case Crime No. 107 registered under Section 489 IPC. He had also seized four currency notes having denomination of one hundred each. He has also deposed that at the instance of accused Ishwar, he had raided the house of accused Rajendra Singh and recovered the incriminating materials. Kudana village is located within the territorial jurisdiction of police station Shamli. He also lodged the report and completed procedural formalities required for search and seizure within the territorial jurisdiction of another police station, namely, Shamli. He has also stated that he had associated public witnesses, namely, Chandan Singh, Balbir Singh, Kaliram and Mahendra Singh whom he had found present in the outskirts of village Kudana. He has accepted that during the course of search and seizure of the house of accused, the villate Pradhan was not called. He has stated to have recovered the incriminating materials used for printing of counterfeit currency. He has denied information that one Jaipal, cousin of Inspector Tikaram Malik (with whom he had worked as Sub Inspector) and Balbir Singh, who was associated as a public witness during the course of search and seizure of the incriminating articles was an accused in the murder of the father of accused Rajendra Singh. He has admitted that Tikaram Malik was posted as S.O. in Police Station ‘Pasu’, Distt. Bulandshahar, between 1975-76 for 3-4 months. However, he has expressed ignorance about the case of murder of the father of accused Rajendra Singh. 6. Shri Mehakar Singh, Dy. He has admitted that Tikaram Malik was posted as S.O. in Police Station ‘Pasu’, Distt. Bulandshahar, between 1975-76 for 3-4 months. However, he has expressed ignorance about the case of murder of the father of accused Rajendra Singh. 6. Shri Mehakar Singh, Dy. S.P., Special Enquiries, Lucknow, has only stated that he was transferred the investigation of case under the orders of Inspector General of Police from S.I. J.S.Arya. He had interrogated public witnesses Balbir etc. J.S. Arya was S.I. on 31.7.1977 at Police Station Shamli. He had been assigned the investigation after taking it from S.I. Shri Harpal Singh. He had recorded the statements of Chandan Singh and Kaliram etc. Chandan Singh is also one of the accused in murder case of the father of accused. He had inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared the spot map. He had also recorded the statement of S.I. Shahabuddin Chaudhary. Later on, the investigation was taken over by C.I.D. 7. Witness S.I. Mohd. Akhtar was posted on 10.7.1977 at Police Station Rampur Maniharaan, district Saharanpur and he had accompanied S.I. Shahabuddin Chaudhary during search and seizure of the house of accused Rajendra Singh. He has supported the statement of PW-2, S.I. Shahabuddin Chaudhary, in material particulars. Shri Pratap Singh, Chief Judicial Magistrate (PW-6) had sent the currency notes to printing press Nasik. Constable Randhir Singh (PW-7) had brought the Malkhana register. It contained the details of the incriminating materials. Surendra Kumar Singh (PW-8) was Inspector, C.B.C.I.D. He also conducted the investigation in the end after transfer of Inspector Mehakar Singh. According to him, he had filed the examination report of Government Security Printing Press, Nasik, with the charge-sheet, but the same was not traceable in the records of the Court. So he produced the carbon copy of report. He has admitted that he had not noted the detailed contents of the examination report in the case diary. 8. The accused also produced two defence witnesses, who have proved the information that Inspector Tikaram Malik was posted as S.O at police station Pasu, Bulandshahr, when Sub Inspector of Police Shahabuddin Chaudhary was working as Sub-Inspector under him. 9. He has admitted that he had not noted the detailed contents of the examination report in the case diary. 8. The accused also produced two defence witnesses, who have proved the information that Inspector Tikaram Malik was posted as S.O at police station Pasu, Bulandshahr, when Sub Inspector of Police Shahabuddin Chaudhary was working as Sub-Inspector under him. 9. On a careful examination of the records and after hearing learned counsel for State, we find that the prosecution story does not inspire confidence of the Court in the background of the fact that the accused had enmity with public witnesses associated by police party during the course of search and seizure of his house. Police Sub-Inspector Shahabuddin Chaudhary, who played lead-role in conducting search and seizure, had remained posted with Inspector Tikaram Malik at police station Pasu, Bulandshahr. Brother of Inspector Tikaram Malik, namely, Balbir was associated as a public witness during search and seizure. Their first cousin Jaipal was an accused in murder case of the father of accused-respondent. The solitary public witness Kaliram has not supported the prosecution case, and was declared hostile. Besides, S.I. Shahabuddin Chaudhary (PW-2) was not competent to conduct the search and seizure within the territorial jurisdiction of another police station, namely, Shamli, in view of the provisions of Sections 100, 165 and 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code but still he did so. Thus, it appears to be a case of false implication of accused Rajendra Singh at the instance of the party inimically disposed towards him. That apart, when two views are possible, this Court should not interfere with the view of acquittal taken by the trial Court. We do not find any misreading of evidence and/or perversity in the reasons given for recording acquittal by the trial Court. Although while affirming the order of acquittal, this Court is not required to give detailed reasons, but we have discussed the evidence at considerable length in the preceding paragraphs and finally, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. 10. Hence, this State appeal fails, and as such, it is hereby dismissed. —————