Delhi High Court
Hukam Singh vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 1 December, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 4th October, 2010
Date of Order: 1st December, 2010
+ Crl.Appeal No. 18/2004
% 01.12.2010
Hukam Singh ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.R.Puri, Advocate
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) ... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against his
conviction whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 392 read
with Section 34 and Section 394 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven
years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-.
2. The prosecution's story is that the victim Kailash was found in
injured condition on road and he reported that on 11th August, 2001 at about 9.30
pm he had hired a Three Wheeler Scooter Rickshaw (TSR) from Tigri Khanpur
for Anand Vihar ISBT and in the said TSR one person was already sitting. At
about 10.30 pm, the TSR driver instead of going to his destination turned TSR to
Hasanpur, when he objected to it and asked the driver as to where he was taking
the TSR, the person sitting on the back seat took out a knife and pointed at his
throat and robbed Rs.400/- from his pocket and snatched a suitcase containing
his clothes and cash of Rs.5500/-. In the process of robbing him, he was injured
by knife. He was then thrown out of the TSR and the scooter driver ran away
with the robber
3. The appellant is alleged to be the TSR driver and has been
convicted on the basis of testimony of complainant that the appellant was the
driver of TSR in which he was robbed. The appellant was arrested by the police
in this case on the basis of a purported confession made by the appellant in
another case before another police official while in custody. After his arrest, his
police remand was sought in this case and investigation was done. The
appellant refused TIP on the ground that he was shown to the witnesses. Thus,
the identification of the appellant from complainant was got done outside the
Court by the Investigating officer and thereafter he was identified in the Court.
4. The sole basis of conviction of the appellant by the trial Court is the
statement of the complainant made in the Court that it was the appellant who was
driving the TSR and the complainant identified the appellant in the Court.
5. In case, the appellant was plying a TSR in Delhi and was taking
passengers, there are two possibilities - one, either the appellant owned the TSR
or he was plying a TSR owned by someone else on monthly lease basis or
periodical lease basis. The appellant also would have possessed a driving
license issued by the Transport Authority permitting him to drive a TSR in Delhi.
The police in this case neither recovered driving license of the appellant, nor was
able to recover the scooter (TSR). It is not the case of the police that appellant
was owner of the TSR neither it is a case of police that appellant was taking TSR
on hire from someone for plying on the roads of Delhi, neither such evidence has
been produced. The confessional statement of the appellant recorded by police
would show that the appellant had entered into a conspiracy with the co-accused
to rob passengers and appellant with that aim had taken a TSR from one of his
friends viz. Raju on that day for about 3 hours on some excuse. Neither Raju, the
alleged TSR owner, was interrogated by the police or traced by the police nor
was the TSR number allegedly owned by Raju found out. The case was sent to
trial by the Investigating Officer without this material evidence regarding TSR.
6. The learned trial Court convicted the accused believing the
testimony of the complainant. I consider that unless the appellant was shown to
have been driving a TSR on that day, the appellant's link with this crime could not
have been established. The appellant's link with this crime could only be
established if it was proved that the appellant was driving a TSR on that day,
TSR was traced, and either the evidence of owner or evidence of person who
handed over TSR to the appellant was recorded. Conviction of the appellant
merely on the basis of identification by the complainant in the Court cannot be
upheld. The identification has to be doubtful since it was night time when the
TSR allegedly was hired and no specific description of the appellant was given by
the complainant in his first report.
I therefore accept this appeal. The conviction of the appellant is
set aside. The appellant is acquitted.
December 01, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
