State (Delhi Administration) vs Prem Chand Lambu And Ors.
1994 Latest Caselaw 136 Del

JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.

(1) The respondents and two accused were tried for offences under Section 399 and Section 402 IPC. Respondents, Prem Chand, Satnam Singh and Rajbir Singh were also tried for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The brief facts leading to the trial of these respondents are these:

(2) On 19th May, 1975 Inspector Amarjit Singh working in Special Staff, East District received a secret information at 6 p.m. that dacoits headed by Prem Chand alias Lambu would be committing dacoity during that night at about 2 a.m. in Maujpur Gonda while armed with illegal arms. The informer was directed by Inspector Amarjit Singh to again confirm the information and ascertain the number of dacoits and the place of their assembly etc. The information was brought to the notice of the superior officers. The informer again came to the Office of the Special Staff at 10.30 p.m. and informed that the information given by him earlier was correct and that the gang of dacoits headed by Lambu would comprise of 5 persons and would be committing dacoity in the residential houses of Maujpur at about 2 a.m. after coming from the side of Karawal Nagar and would assemble in Bagh Sherpur. Inspector Amarjit Singh organized a raiding party, the details whereof have been given in the impugned judgment. In the raiding party two public witnesses, namely, Mangat Ram and Dalbir Singh were also joined. All the members of the raiding party left the Office of the Special Staff and the vehicle was parked at a distance of about 2 furlongs from Bagh Sherpur. The raiding party was divided into three groups - one headed by Inspector Amarjit Singh, the second by S.I. 0m Dutt and the third by S.I. Raghubir Singh. The members of the raiding party were informed that they would not move till the dacoits were challenged by Inspector Amarjit Singh after firing very light pistol, and that they would thereafter surround the dacoits. The groups of the raiding parties took their respective positions. The dacoits started collecting in Bagh Sherpur. Someone from among the dacoits was heard saying while addressing Rakha that until now they may have received little, but the dacoity of that day would make them rich. Inspector Amarjit Singh fired very light pistol and challenged the dacoits by saying that they have been surrounded by the police and they should not make any attempt to escape. They were surrounded by the members of the raiding party and they succeeded in apprehending six persons. Inspector Amarjit Singh took search of those persons and he recovered one bag containing 15 live cartridges of 12 bore and one knife having a blade of 6" from Rakha, one gun 12 bore having No. 6141/ 3553 A / 7 in working order with 22 live cartridges from Satnam Singh, one Rifle .303 in working order bearing No. MKI-3650 loaded with 9 bullets and one belt having 20 live cartridges from Prem Chand, one iron sambhal with one pointed end from Haria @ Parkash, one torch and a lathi from Uma Shankar and one lathi and a torch from the hand while 5 live cartridges from the pocket of pant of Rajbir Singh. Inspector Amarjit Singh prepared sketch of the knife and thereafter the knife, gun, rifle and the cartridges recovered from different accused were converted into separate sealed parcels and were taken into possession after preparing separate memos. A rukka was sent to the P.S.Seelampur.

(3) Since the offence under Sections 399 and 402 Indian Penal Code was exclusively friable by Court of Session, the main case against the accused and the other connected cases under the Arms Act were committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Charges under Sections 399 and 402 Indian Penal Code were framed against all the accused persons. Separate charges under Section 25 of the Arms Act were framed against Satnam Singh, Prem Chand, Rajbir Singh and Rakha. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges.

(4) After due appreciation of the evidence, by the impugned judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents of the offences under Section 399 and 402 Indian Penal Code as also of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. We may notice that two accused,namely, Haria and Rakha were declared proclaimed offenders.

(5) The case set up by the prosecution was that after getting secret information, Inspector Amarjit Singh called different police officials from the Police Stations Seelampur, Shahdara and Gandhi Nagar between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. According to Inspector Amarjit Singh, he made request to the concerned S.H.Os on telephone on the basis of which different police officers and officials came to his office. The prosecution has,however, failed to prove any evidence to show that entries were made that different police officers came to the office of the Special Staff, Seelampur except making entry No. 24 in the Daily Diary Register. S.1.0m Dutt, who was one of the persons heading one of the groups in the raiding party admitted that he had not made any entry in the Daily Diary Register of P.S. Shahdara about his coming to the Police Station. This was an important aspect of the matter for the prosecution to prove that different officials from different Police Stations had actually joined. The prosecution, however, failed to lead evidence to prove the said fact and the benefit of which has naturally to go to the accused.

(6) According to the case of the prosecution two independent witnesses namely, Mangat Ram and Dalbir Singh were joined in the raiding party from the Police Station. For the reasons best known to the prosecution, Mangat Ram was not produced as a witness. Regarding Dalbir Singh, Public Witness .5 it has come in evidence that he was present in front of the Police Station Seelampur at about 10 p.m. Ex Public Witness . 6/ B, which is a copy of the Daily Diary Entry No. 24 recorded at the office of the Special Staff at about 10.30 p.m. about the departure of the members of the raiding party, mentions the names of all the police officials, but strangely the names of the public witnesses have not been mentioned. The said entry only records that public witnesses have also been taken without recording their names and particulars. In case, Mangat Ram and Dalbir Singh were taken as members of the raiding party, on facts and circumstances of the present case, their names would have been mentioned in Ex. Public Witness . 6/B. The absence of their names casts a serious doubt about their presence. Further, the prosecution has kept the address of Dalbir Singh as a guarded secret for the reasons best known to it.

(7) Further it appears there is discrepancy in regard to the possession of very light pistol and its cartridges at the time of the alleged incident. In this regard, the prosecution evidence has been very vague. It was for the prosecution to specify as to from where the said pistol was got issued and in the absence thereof the very basis of the prosecution story becomes doubtful.

(8) There is yet another aspect of the case. According to the prosecution when the accused persons were apprehended, there was a scuffle in which the accused received injuries. The prosecution has, however, failed to examine the Doctor, who had medically examined the accused. Even the M.L.Cs were not proved. According to the prosecution the accused were armed and Prem Chand was having a loaded .303 rifle. It is highly improbable that the accused would have sustained injuries without inflicting any injury to the members of the raiding party.

(9) There is also discrepancy in the statement of witnesses as to the deposit of the case property with Moharir Malkhana. Admittedly, the case property was not deposited by Inspector Amarjit Singh. He is stated to have handed over the same to S.1.0m Dutt. S.I. 0m Dutt also did not deposit the case property with Moharir Malkhana and is stated to have handed it over to A.S.I. Ran Singh. Thus, A.S.I. Ran Singh was the best person to depose about the deposit of the case property. There is no explanation on record as to why A.S.I. Ran Singh was not examined as a witness.

(10) Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge after having noticed that a weapon like .303 rifle could not be easily planted by the police seriously erred in still acquitting the accused, Prem Chand. We are, however, unable to accept the contention, as in our opinion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that on that ground alone the accused could not be convicted in view of discrepancies noticed in the judgment under appeal. In our opinion, the finding of acquittal returned by the learned Additional Session Judge is based on proper appreciation of evidence and the same is not liable to be reversed. We do not find any merit in the appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed.