Full Judgment Text
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1571 OF 2021
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020)
PARVEEN @ SONU ...Appellant
vs.
The State of Haryana ...Respondent
J U D G M E N T
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J .
1. Leave granted.
2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment dated
th
17 March, 2020 passed in CRA-D No.232 of 2010 by the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby,
the High Court has dismissed the Appeal filed by the
appellant / accused and upheld the conviction and order
of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Rewari.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as called
out from the case of the prosecution, are as under.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Rajni Mukhi
Date: 2021.12.07
16:18:33 IST
Reason:
On 14.03.2009, the police party was escorting four
accused namely Nadeem, Naushad, Ravi & Sunil from the
1
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020
Central Jail, Jaipur and they were to be produced in the
Court of CJM, Bhiwani. They reached Railway Station
Rewari, in the morning at 04:30 hrs. They then boarded
the train for Bhiwani. When the train reached at Railway
Station Nangal Pathani, four young boys entered their
compartment and attacked the police party in order to
rescue the accused, who were in police custody and were
to be produced in the Court of CJM, Bhiwani. The
accused, who were in custody, also tried to escape. They
even tried to snatch the official carbine. It is alleged
that one of the accused fired upon Head Constable Arjun
Singh. In the complaint, it was stated that the police
overpowered one person, who had thrown chilly powder in
their eyes and the remaining three accused succeeded in
fleeing. The apprehended accused disclosed his name and
identity of other assailants. Injured Head Constable
Arjun Singh was shifted to hospital, who succumbed to
fire arm injuries subsequently. After completing
investigation, all the accused were prosecuted for the
offences punishable under Sections 224, 225, 332, 353,
392, 307, 302, 120-B of the IPC and Section 25/54/59 of
the Arms Act.
4. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution
examined as many as 23 witnesses in support of its case.
The statements of the accused were also recorded under
2
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. As they have pleaded that
they were innocent and they have been falsely
implicated, they were tried for the aforesaid offences
in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, in
Sessions Case No.32 of 2009. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge by judgment dated 14.01.2010, held all
the accused guilty for commission of offences punishable
under Sections 224, 225, 332, 353, 302 r/w Section 120-B
of the Indian Penal Code. The accused Amarjit Singh and
Surender Singh @ Dhattu were further held guilty for
commission of offence punishable under Section 25 of the
Arms Act. By order dated 18.01.2010 on the quantum of
sentence, they were sentenced to life imprisonment along
with fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offences under
Section 302 r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,
apart from conviction for other offences, as referred
above. The sentence for various offences was ordered to
run concurrently.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, the appellant
herein, and four other accused have preferred separate
appeals before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh. All the appeals were dismissed by common
judgment dated 17.03.2020, confirming the conviction and
3
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020
sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. Hence this
Appeal.
rd
6. The 3 Accused Parveen @ Sonu is appellant in the
present Appeal. We were informed that no appeals were
preferred by other accused in the common judgment of the
High Court.
7. We have heard Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Counsel
appearing for the Appellant and Ms. Bansuri Swaraj,
learned Addl.AG appearing for the respondent – State of
Haryana and carefully perused the material available on
record.
8. In this Appeal, it is contended by learned Counsel
for the appellant that though there was no concrete
proof to establish the participation of the appellant in
the alleged crime, the Trial Court as well as the High
Court believed the prosecution story in absence of any
supporting evidence and convicted him. It is submitted
that except the alleged confessional statements of co–
accused, there was no other acceptable evidence to
connect the appellant herein to the crime. It is
submitted that as per the case of prosecution, apart
from the police party who were escorting accused in the
train, there were about 50–60 passengers. No independent
witness was examined. Out of the four young boys who
4
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020
boarded the train, only one was having a country made
pistol and fired. There was no TIP (Test Identification
Parade) conducted. The accused, who was apprehended as
per the prosecution, was only Vinod and all the other
three persons fled away. But the other person who is
stated to be identified, was Amarjit who had fired a
shot upon Arjun Singh, Head Constable. It is submitted
that though there was absolutely no evidence to connect
the appellant/accused, the Trial Court has convicted the
appellant in absence of any acceptable evidence to prove
the guilt of the appellant. It is submitted that even
the High Court, except recording the depositions of all
the witnesses, has not considered any of the grounds
urged, and dismissed the Appeal. In support of the case
of the appellant, learned Counsel has relied on the
judgment of this Court in the case of Indra Dalal v.
1
State Of Haryana and the judgment of this Court in the
2
case of Uppa alias Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka .
9. On the other hand, learned Addl.AG appearing for
the respondent – State supported the view taken by the
Courts below. She submitted that there was sufficient
material and evidence on record which clearly
establishes the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable
doubt. It is submitted that there was credible evidence
1
(2015) 11 SCC 31
2
(2013) 14 SCC 729
5
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020
available on record to believe that appellant was a
party to the accused group, who conspired together to
rescue the other four accused, who were being taken by
the police party to produce before the Court. Learned
Counsel in support of her argument to prove the case of
the prosecution of criminal conspiracy, has relied on
the judgment of this Court in the case of Firozuddin
3
Basheeruddin and Others v. State of Kerala . Further, on
the aspect of confessional statements made by the
co-accused, has relied on the judgment of this Court in
4
the case of Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar .
10. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts
and circumstances of the case and the material placed on
record. We have also perused depositions of various
witnesses which are placed on record. To prove the case,
the prosecution has examined as many as 23 witnesses.
PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-7 and PW-21 are doctors. PW-6 is
Sub-Inspector of Police and he was on duty on 14.03.2009
at Police Station GRP Rewari. In the statement, he has
referred to the disclosure statement of the other
accused by name Vinod, which was exhibitted as Ex.PS. In
his cross-examination, he has deposed that several
persons were assembled at the place of occurrence, but
3
(2001) 7 SCC 596
4
(2019) 12 SCC 784
6
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020
none of them was ready to join or associate with
investigation. PW-16 is ASI Ajit Singh, who has deposed
that accused Sunil @ Bachhu made a disclosure statement.
PW-18 is Sub-Inspector Pratap Singh, who has deposed
that on 11.05.2009, stating that he along with other
police officials arrested accused Amarjit @ Dana and
Surender @ Dattu. He referred to the disclosure
statement made by accused Amarjit. PW-20 is Constable
Inder Raj, who is the eye-witness. In his deposition, he
has stated that when the train reached Railway Station,
Nangal Pathani, four boys aged about 20–25 years,
entered their compartment and one of them was carrying a
polythene bag and one other was armed with country made
pistol. He too has deposed that apprehended accused was
Vinod and he clearly stated that he had thrown chilly
powder in their eyes and accused Amarjit, who had fired
a shot upon Arjun Singh, Head Constable. In the cross-
examination, he deposed that there were as many as 50–60
passengers in the compartment. It is to be noticed that
PW-20 Inder Raj has not referred the name of the
appellant / accused i.e. Parveen @ Sonu in his
deposition. PW-22 is another Constable by name Satbir,
who has corroborated the statement of PW-20. He too has
deposed that accused Vinod had thrown chilly powder on
them and other accused by name Amarjit had fired at
7
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020
Arjun Singh, Head Constable. PW-23 is Sub-Inspector
Randhir Singh, who deposed that on 14.03.2009, he
recorded the statement of Constable Inder Raj.
11. The Trial Court has passed the conviction of the
appellant herein, mainly relying on the medical reports
and depositions of PW-20, PW-22 and PW-23. Even
according to the case of the prosecution, only four
accused have entered the train and one of them who was
identified as Vinod, had thrown chilly powder in their
eyes and other accused Amarjit had fired a shot upon
Arjun Singh, Head Constable. It is also clear from the
cross-examination of PW-20 that there were about 50–60
passengers in the compartment, but no one was examined.
Even PW-22 Constable Satbir, who has corroborated the
Statement of PW-20, disclosed the names of Vinod and
Amarjit Singh only. Except the vague and bald statement
that the appellant herein is a member of alleged
conspiracy, there is no other acceptable evidence on
record to prove conspiracy. For the reasons not known,
in a case of this nature, the investigating agency has
not conducted TIP (Test Identification Parade). Except
the alleged confessional statements of co-accused, there
is no other evidence on record to implicate the
appellant. It is also brought to our notice that the
appellant was prosecuted for snatching away the Bolero
8
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020
car in Criminal Case No.535 of 2009 in the Court of HCS,
st
Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Bhiwani, he was acquitted
of the charge for offences under Sections 392, 216 r/w
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the said
judgment has become final.
12. It is fairly well settled, to prove the charge of
conspiracy, within the ambit of Section 120-B, it is
necessary to establish that there was an agreement
between the parties for doing an unlawful act. At the
same time, it is to be noted that it is difficult to
establish conspiracy by direct evidence at all, but at
the same time, in absence of any evidence to show
meeting of minds between the conspirators for the
intended object of committing an illegal act, it is not
safe to hold a person guilty for offences under Section
120-B of IPC. A few bits here and a few bits there on
which prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate
for connecting the accused with the commission of crime
of criminal conspiracy. Even the alleged confessional
statements of the co-accused, in absence of other
acceptable corroborative evidence, is not safe to
convict the accused. In the case of Indra Dalal v. State
1
Of Haryana , this Court has considered the conviction
based only on confessional statement and recovery of
vehicle used in the crime. In the said case, while
9
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020
setting aside the conviction, this Court has held in
paragraphs 16 & 17 as under:
“16. The philosophy behind the aforesaid
provision is acceptance of a harsh
reality that confessions are extorted by
the police officers by practising
oppression and torture or even inducement
and, therefore, they are unworthy of any
credence. The provision absolutely
excludes from evidence against the
accused a confession made by him to a
police officer. This provision applies
even to those confessions which are made
to a police officer who may not otherwise
be acting as such. If he is a police
officer and confession was made in his
presence, in whatever capacity, the same
becomes inadmissible in evidence. This is
the substantive rule of law enshrined
under this provision and this strict rule
has been reiterated countlessly by this
Court as well as the High Courts.
17. The word “confession” has nowhere
been defined. However, the courts have
resorted to the dictionary meaning and
explained that incriminating statements
by the accused to the police suggesting
the inference of the commission of the
crime would amount to confession and,
therefore, inadmissible under this
provision. It is also defined to mean a
direct acknowledgment of guilt and not
the admission of any incriminating fact,
however grave or conclusive. Section 26
of the Evidence Act makes all those
confessions inadmissible when they are
made by any person, whilst he is in the
custody of a police officer, unless such
a confession is made in the immediate
presence of a Magistrate. Therefore, when
a person is in police custody, the
confession made by him even to a third
person, that is, other than a police
officer, shall also become inadmissible.
10
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020
13. Further, in the case of Uppa alias Manjunatha v.
2
State of Karnataka , this Court has held that when an
accused is held guilty and sentenced to imprisonment,
confirmation of sentence by the High Court is
justifiable only in the event of giving sound reasons
upon analysis of material evidence. In the case on hand,
a perusal of the judgment of the High Court reveals that
except referring to depositions, High Court has not
considered the evidence at all and confirmed the
conviction and sentence as ordered by the Trial Court.
The judgments relied on by the learned Addl.AG in the
case of Firozuddin Basheeruddin and Others v. State of
3
Kerala and in the case of Raju Manjhi v. State of
4
Bihar , are not helpful to support the case of
prosecution, having regard to the facts of the case and
evidence on record.
14. On close scrutiny of evidence on record, we are of
the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove
its case, that the appellant herein, has conspired with
other accused for the offences for which he was charged.
Except the alleged confessional statements of the co-
accused and in absence of any other corroborative
evidence, it is not safe to maintain the conviction and
sentence imposed upon the Appellant. The findings
recorded by the Trial Court in convicting the appellant
11
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020
mainly on the ground that he was one of the conspirators
for the crime in question, is erroneous and illegal. The
High Court has not considered the evidence on record in
proper perspective and erroneously confirmed the
conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed.
Conviction recorded and sentence imposed on the
appellant is, hereby, set aside and he is acquitted of
the charges levelled against him. The appellant be
released forthwith, unless his custody is required in
connection with any other case.
....................J.
[R. SUBHASH REDDY]
....................J.
[HRISHIKESH ROY]
New Delhi,
December 07, 2021.
12