Ram Chhabi @ Chhabia vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 4952 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 
Reserved On.29.04.2022
 
Delivered On 06.06.2022
 
Court No. - 51
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 111 of 2005
 
Appellant :- Ram Chhabi @ Chhabia
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Mahmmad Irfan 
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 29.11.2004, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No.1, Mau in Session Trial No. 75 of 2003 (State vs. Ram Chhabi @ Chhabia,), Crime No. 187, 188 of 2003, under Sections 307 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act, Police Station Ghosi, Mau, whereby the appellant Ram Chhabi @ Chhabia has been convicted under Section 25 Arms Act and sentenced to two years imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/-. However, he was acquitted of charge under Section 307 IPC.

2. According to the prosecution version, on 20.04.2003 the police received an information that one bandit Ram Chhabi @ Chhabia along with his associates is staying at the house of one Ram Badan at village Ahmadpur Asna and he may commit some heinous offence. On this information, SHO Arjun Singh, S.S.I. Lal Bahadur Malviya and some other police officials reached at village Asna and they left their vehicle outside the village. At about 2.00 AM in night they reached near house of Ram Badan and challenged the bandits and asked them to surrender. At the same time one of the miscreant made firing at the police, however, all police official escaped unhurt. The police party chased the miscreants and one of them namely, Ram Chhabi @ Chhabia was apprehended, whereas as his two companions succeeded in running away. In search, one country made revolver and three live cartridges were recovered from him. The recovered revolver and cartridges were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. Ka-1 and later on this case was got registered under Section 307 IPC and 25 Arms Act.

3. During investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared site plan of the spot and recorded statement of witnesses. After completion of investigation, the appellant/ accused was charge-sheeted for offence under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act.

4. The accused / appellant was charged for offence under Section 307 IPC and 25 Arms Act.

5. Prosecution has examined six witnesses. PW-1 Mahabeer Prasad Dubey is complainant of the case, PW-2 Inspector Arjun Singh and PW-3 S.I. Lal Bahadur Malviya are witness of recovery. PW-4 constable Dukhi Ram has recorded FIR and GD entry. PW-5 S.I. Deenanath Mishra and PW-6 S.I. Raghav Ram Mishra have conducted investigation. After prosecution evidence, accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he has denied the prosecution evidence and claimed false implication. However, no evidence was led in defence.

6. After hearing and analyzing the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the accused-appellant Ram Chhabi @ Chhabia under Section 25 Arms Act and sentenced as stated above, however, he was acquitted of charge under Section 307 IPC.

7. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned Amicus Curiae, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

8. Learned Amicus Curiae has argued that impugned judgment of conviction is against the evidence on record. The Trial court not appreciated the evidence in correct manner. There is no independent witness of alleged incident, whereas the alleged incident took place in the village. It was submitted that in the absence of any independent witness, the testimony of police officials must not be believed. There are contradictions in the testimony of witnesses, which render their evidence unreliable. It was further submitted that though as per the report of the Jail, the accused-appellant has already under gone the sentence awarded by the trial court but in view of above stated reasons the conviction of accused-appellant is liable to be set aside.

9. Learned AGA has submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The conviction of accused-appellant is based on evidence. Referring to statements of recovery witnesses, it was submitted that all the three witnesses of recovery have made clear and consistent statements and their evidence is fully reliable. There are no reasons that why these witnesses would depose falsely against the accused-appellant.

10. Perusal of record shows that PW-1 Mahabeer Prasad Dubey has made clear and cogent statement that on 20.04.2003, after receipt of secret information that accused Ram Chhabi @ Chhabia along with some other miscreants is concealing at the house of Ram Badan in village Ahmedpur Asna in order to commit some offence, he (PW1) along with other police officials including PW 2 and PW 3, has reached at the spot. He has stated that at about 2.00 PM they reached at the house of said Ram Badan and accused and his associates were challenged and asked to surrender but the said miscreants have made firing at the police party and thereafter accused /appellant Ram Chhabi @ Chhabia was apprehended, while he was trying to escape and a country made revolver, having three live cartridges and three fired cartridges, was recovered from his possession. PW-1 Mahabeer Prasad Dubey has identified the case property in the Court and the same was exhibited.

11. PW-2 Inspector Arjun Singh and PW-3 S.I. Lal Bahadur Malviya, who were member of the said police party, have also made similar statements and supported prosecution version.

12. The prosecution case regarding the alleged attempt to kill the police party has already been disbelieved by the trial court and the accused-appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC. Perusal of the evidence shows that so far as the recovery of said country made pistol and cartridges is concerned, there is consistent and overwhelming evidence against the accused-appellant. PW-1 Mahabeer Prasad Dubey has made clear and cogent statement regarding the alleged recovery of country made revolver and cartridges and he has identified the same during his statement in court. He has been subjected to cross-examination but nothing adverse could come out. His version has been amply corroborated by PW-2 Inspector Arjun Singh and PW-3 S.I. Lal Bahadur Malviya, who were member of the said police party and they have also made cogent statements regarding the alleged recovery from the accused-appellant.

13. So far the contention, that there is no independent witness of alleged incident, is concerned, it may be mentioned that there is no such law that the testimony of the police officials cannot be acted upon without any corroboration from public person. A police official is competent witness, unless it is shown that such police official was having enmity or any other reason to depose falsely. In case of Tahir v. State of Delhi AIR 1996 SC 3079, it has been laid down that no infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police officials, merely because they belong to police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials if found reliable unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The rule of prudence, however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case. Similarly in case of Anil v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1996 SC 2943 : (1996 Cri LJ 1698), it was held that there is no rule of law that the evidence of police officials has to be discarded or that it suffers from some inherent infirmity. Prudence, however, requires that the evidence of the police officials who are interested in the outcome of the result of the case needs to be carefully scrutinised and independently appreciated. Thus, in appropriate cases, conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the police officials, who conducted the search and seizure. That cannot be disbelieved on the ground that no independent witness was examined to prove the search or seizure. If the evidence of the police officer is reliable, inspires confidence and is of sterling character, the same can form the basis for conviction. Much depends upon the intrinsic worth of the evidence of the police Officer. In this case, there is nothing to show that why PW 1 to PW 3 would depose falsely against appellant. The testimony of the police officials (PW 1 to PW 3) appear to be of unimpeachable character and truthful and thus, the same that can be accepted without any corroboration by the independent witness.

14. Learned Amicus Curiae has also pointed out some contradiction in the statement of witnesses but the same are minor contradictions and the same do not go to the root of the matter and do not affect substantial aspects of the case. No material contradiction could be shown. In Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 13 SCC 657, it has been observed that while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. It is a settled legal proposition that, while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not prompt the court to reject the evidence. The irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness, cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions. In the instant case no material contradiction or inconsistency could be shown. All the three recovery witnesses have been subjected to cross-examination but no such contradiction could be shown so as to affect the substance of their testimony. The testimony of recovery witnesses (PW 1 to PW 3) is found reliable and it can safely be acted upon. Examining the entire evidence it clearly emerges that the prosecution has been able to prove that in the alleged incident, the accused-appellant was found in illicit possession of a country made revolver and cartridges.

15. In view of aforesaid, it is clear that trial Court has appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and the findings recorded by the trial Court are based on evidence and thus, the conviction of accused-appellant under Section 25 Arms Act is liable to be upheld.

16. So far the question of sentence is concerned, it is well settled that the punishment to be awarded in a case has to be commensurate with the gravity of crime as also with the relevant facts and attending circumstances. The avowed objects of law, of protection of society and responding to the society's call for justice, need to be kept in mind while taking up the question of sentencing in any given case. The proportion between the crime and punishment has to be maintained while further balancing the rights of the wrong doer as also of the victim of the crime and the society at large.

17. In the instant case, it may be stated that alleged incident has been shown of 20.04.2003 and this appeal is pending since the year 2005 and there is nothing to show that accused-appellant is a previous convict. Considering all aspects of the matter, it would be appropriate that sentence imprisonment of appellant be reduced from two years to one and a half years and fine be reduced from Rs. 1000/- to 500/-. Accordingly, the conviction of appellant under Section 25 Arms Act is upheld but the sentence awarded by the trial Court is altered and appellant-accused Ram Chhabi @ Chhabia is sentenced to one and a half years imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine the appellant shall undergo one month imprisonment. The impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court stands altered to this extent. If appellant has already undergone this sentence, he needs not to surrender and if the fine has not been deposited so far, he may deposit the fine within one month from today.

18. The appeal is partly allowed in above terms.

19. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned Amicus Curiae. He shall be entitled to get Rs. 4000/- from State government through the office of Advocate General for his assistance rendered in this case.

Order Date :- 06.06.2022

A. Tripathi