Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
MOHINDER SINGH & ANR.HARJINDER SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF HARYANA.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/09/1996
BENCH:
MUKHERJEE M.K. (J)
BENCH:
MUKHERJEE M.K. (J)
FAIZAN UDDIN (J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
M.K.MUKHERJEE, J.
These two appeals have been heard together as they stem
from one and the same incident. Facts leading to these
appeals and relevant for their disposal are as under.
2(a) On April 12,1987 at on about 12 noon Krishan Lal,
driver of car No. RRK-4450, which belongs to one Ved
Prakash, lodged an information with Inspector Hazair Singh,
Station House Officer of Hissar Police Station, whom he met
at Balsamand bus stand, that in that morning at or about
6.30 A.M. when he was standing in the taxi stand of Ganga
Nagar one clean shaven young man sporting a beard and
wearing trousers and bush shirt hired his car for going to
Hissar. The fare was settled at Rs.1.20 per kilometre and he
took Rs. 400/- from him as advance. A few minutes later a
Sikh gentleman, aged about 25 years, came there and both of
them then got into the car. At or about 11 A.M. when the
car was on its way to Hissar and was about to reach
Balsamand the clean shaven man placed a revolver on his neck
and asked him to stop the car. That man then fired a shot in
the air and his companion demanded the return of the sum of
Rs.400/- paid to him earlier against the fare. After he
acceeded to their damand they pushed him out of the car and
drove away.
(b) Inspector Hazair Singh recorded the above complaint of
Krishan Lal and forwarded it to Hissar police station for
registration of the case and sent wireless message to all
the police station in the District to apprehend the car and
the culprits.
(c) In that evening, when Om Prakash, Sub-Inspector of
Police attached to Hissar Police Station, alongwith Head
Constable Ramphal and other police personnel was holding a
Nakabandi on the Hissar-Hansi Bye-Pass by placing drums on
the road, they found, at or about 8 p.m. the above car
coming from the side of Hissar. They signalled the car to
stop and when it came to a halt the two occupants of the car
started running away. Ultimately they succeeded in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
apprehending both of them, who disclosed their names as
Mohinder Singh and Harjinder Singh. After their apprehension
the car was searched and the documents relating to the car
the driving licence of Harjinder singh and one steel chain
containing the keys of the car were recovered. On search of
their persons a country made revolver with a cartridge
loaded therein and four currency notes of Rs.100/- each were
recovered form Harjinder Singh and Mohinder Singh
respectively. All the articles recovered together with the
car were seized and taken possession of by S.I. Om Prakash
under different recovery memos prepared there.
(d) On completion of investigation the Investigating
officer Submitted two chargesheets; one against both
Mohinder Singh and Harjinder Singh Under section 392 read
with 397 I.P.C., and section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 read
with Section 6 of Terrorist & Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1985 (’TADA’ for short) and another
against Harjinder Singh alone under section 25 of the Arms
Act, 1959 read with Section 6 of TADA for unlawful
possession of the country made revolver.
3. The learned Designated Court, Hissar tried the two
cases arising out of the above chargesheets one after the
other and delivered two separate judgments whereby it
convicted and sentenced the appellants for all the above
offences.
4. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence for robbery
Mohinder Singh and Harjinder Singh have filed one of these
appeals (Criminal Appeal No.72 of 1989) and Harjinder Singh
has filed the other appeal (Criminal Appeal No.1647 of 1996)
for his conviction and sentence under section 25 of the Arms
act, 1959 read with Section 6 of TADA.
5. To prove the case of robbery against the two appellants
the prosecution relied principally upon the evidence of
Krishna Lal (P.W.5), H.C. Ramphal (P.W. 6) and S.I. Om
Prakash (P.W.7), Krishan Lal detailed the prosecution case
regarding the snatching of Rs. 400/- and the car from him
after putting him in instant fear of death by two miscreants
and he identified the appellants as those miscreants. We
have carefully gone through his evidence and we find no
reason whatsoever to disbelieve him more so when nothing
could be elicited in his cross examination to discredit him.
On behalf of the appellants it was suggested to him that he
was a procured witness and that the entire case was falsely
engineered but the suggestion was denied. Indeed, we
have searched in vain for materials in support of the above
defence contention but found none. On the contrary we find
that his evidence stands amply corroborated by the fact the
immediately after he was relieved the entire incident. His
identification of the appellants as the two mistake was with
them from 6.30 A.M. till 11.00 A.M. and, therefore, he had
sufficient time to mark their features. While on this point
we may also mention that the appellants refused to be placed
in the test identification parade, which was prayed for by
the Investigating Officer. The other corroborration of his
evidence, as regards the factum of robbery as also the
identification of the two appellants as the miscreants, is
furnished by the evidence of P.Ws. 6 & 7 who seized the care
within 9 hours of the incident with two appellants as the
occupants thereof, recovered the sum of Rs. 400/- from
Mohinder Singh and the revolver from Harjinder Singh, Who
according to P.W.5 was the clean shaven man who had placed
the revolver on his neck and had fired shot in the air. We
do not find any infirmity in the evidence of the above two
witnesses, more so when their evidence is supported by the
contemporaneous documents prepared in respect of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
seizures. For the foregoing discussion we do not find any
merit in Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1989.
6. The other appeal filed by Harjinder Singh against his
conviction under section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with
Section 6 of TADA for unlawful possession of the revolver
has got to be allowed for the simple reason that the
prosecution did not prove that section as required under
section 87 was accorded for prosecuting him for the above
offence.
7. On the conclusions as above we dismiss Criminal Appeal
No. 72 of 1989 and uphold the conviction and sentence
recorded against the two appellants by the Designated Court
in Sessions Case No.5-TC 1987. We, however, allow Criminal
Appeal No. 1647 of 1996 and set aside the conviction and
sentence recorded against the appellant Harjinder Singh
Under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6
of the TADA in Sessions Case No. 3-TC of 1987. The
appellants, who are on bail, will now surrender to the bail
bonds to serve out the sentences imposed upon them in
Sessions Case No. 5-TC 1987.