Ranjit Singh vs State
2015 Latest Caselaw 2676 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                        RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 19, 2015
                        DECIDED ON : APRIL 06, 2015

+                                CRL.A. 1608/2014
       RANJIT SINGH
                                                        ..... Appellant
                        Through : Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate.

                        versus

        STATE
                                                        ..... Respondent
                        Through : Mr.Navin K.Jha, APP.
                                  SI Amit Dutt, PS Gandhi Nagar.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Appellant-Ranjit Singh impugns a judgment of learned

Additional Sessions Judge dated 07.08.2014 in Sessions Case No.32/2014

arising out of FIR No.70/1989 under Section 353/332/307 IPC and 27

Arms Act registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar by which he was

convicted under Section 332 IPC and 27 Arms Act. By an order dated

11.08.2014, he was sentenced to undergo RI for two years with fine

`1,000/- under Section 332 IPC and RI for three years with fine `1,000/-

under Section 27 Arms Act.

2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 16.03.1989 at

about 11:02 a.m. at Gali No.18, Ajit Nagar, Gandhi Nagar near Railway

Line, to avoid apprehension, he inflicted injuries by a knife to Ct.Virender

Singh and Ct.Girraj Singh when they along with SI Radha Raman, SI

Devi Dayal, ASI Tej Pal etc. were on patrolling duty in the area. The

victims were taken to hospital for medical examination. A knife

recovered from the appellant was seized and FIR was lodged. Statements

of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of

investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for

committing various offences. By an order dated 18.05.1992 charges

under Section 307 IPC and 27 Arms Act were framed to which the

appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined

PW-1 (Dr.Rajiv Grover) PW-2 (HC Virender Singh), and PW-4 (Radah

Raman). Thereafter, the appellant absented and was finally declared

Proclaimed Offender. The file was consigned to record room under

Section 299 Cr.P.C. by an order dated 19.07.1997. Subsequently, the

appellant was arrested on 15.01.2014 and a Kalandra under Section 41.1

(C) Cr.P.C. was filed; the case was reopened. The witnesses already

examined were recalled. The prosecution further examined PW-3

(Ct.Shyamvir), ASI Giriraj Singh and (PW-6) HC Sushil Kumar. In 313

statement, the appellant denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded

false implication. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. It is

relevant to note that the State did not challenge appellant's acquittal under

Section 307 IPC. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has

preferred the appeal.

3. Appellant's counsel urged that the trial court did not

appreciate the evidence in its correct and true perspective and fell in grave

error to rely upon the testimonies of the police officials without

independent corroboration. They have given divergent and conflicting

statements as to how and under what circumstances, the appellant was

arrested. The appellant was severally beaten by the police officials on his

refusal to pay illegal gratification and the MLC reflects sustaining of

multiple injuries on his body. Learned APP urged that the prosecution has

examined victims who sustained injuries and there are no reasons to

disbelieve them.

4. The occurrence took place on the night intervening

15/16.03.1989 at around 11:00 a.m. The appellant was apprehended and a

knife (Ex.P-1) was recovered from his possession. The appellant has not

denied his apprehension at the spot. He did not explain his presence at

odd hours at the spot. Injuries sustained by the victims are not under

challenge. Appellant's plea is that these are self-inflicted. No plausible

explanation has, however, been offered as to why the victims would inflict

injuries on their bodies without reason. The victims were immediately

taken to Swami Dayanand hospital and were medically examined by

Dr.Rajiv Grover vide MLCs Ex.PW-1/B (Ct.Girriraj Singh), Ex.PW-1/C

(Ct.Virender Singh) and Ex.PW-1/D (Ct.Shyambir Singh). It is relevant

to note that appellant who sustained injuries due to beatings by public was

also taken for medical examination in the said hospital and was examined

by the same doctor vide MLC Ex.PW-1/A. Nothing was suggested to him

in the cross-examination if injuries on the body of Ct.Shyambir, Ct.Giriraj

and Ct.Virender Singh could be self-inflicted. HC Virender Singh as

PW-2 implicated the appellant for inflicting injuries to him and his

colleagues. He also proved recovery of knife (Ex.P-1) from appellant's

possession. Since the appellant had absconded and statement of HC

Virender Singh was recorded under Section 299 Cr.P.C. in his absence, he

could not be cross-examined. Subsequently, when the appellant was

arrested on 15.01.2014 and PW-2 Virender Singh was recalled for cross-

examination, he had already expired. His testimony under Section 299

Cr.P.C. is to be read in evidence. PW-3 (ASI Shyambir) gave graphic

details in his Court statement and identified the appellant to have inflicted

injuries to him and his colleagues in an attempt to overpower him.

Despite lengthy cross-examination, no material discrepancies could be

elicited in his cross examination to disbelieve him. No ulterior motive was

assigned for falsely implicating the accused. His statement has been

corroborated on material facts by PW-4 (Radha Raman); his testimony

remained unshattered in the cross-examination. ASI Giriraj Singh is

another witness who has deposed on similar lines and did not deviate from

his version. The fact that the appellant had sustained injuries on his

person affirms his presence at the spot. The prosecution witnesses though

police officials, were not acquainted with him to falsely implicate him in

this case. Appellant's conduct is unreasonable. Instead of facing trial, he

absconded for a long period and could be apprehended on 15.01.2014

after a gap of about 20 years. He did not offer any reasonable

explanation as to where he remained present during this long period.

5. The trial court has discussed all the relevant aspects minutely

and has given cogent reasons to base conviction. The findings of the trial

court on conviction warrant no intervention. Minor inconsistencies and

infirmities highlighted by the appellant's counsel can be ignored safely in

view of the overwhelming and positive evidence against him.

6. Regarding sentence, the appellant has suffered ordeal of trial

for long. The incident pertains to the year 1989. Nothing has emerged if

the appellant is involved in any other criminal case or is a previous

convict. Nominal roll dated 15.11.2014 reveals that he has already

undergone one year, five months and twenty days incarceration besides

remission for twenty three days as on 15.11.2014. His overall conduct in

jail is satisfactory. He is a first time offender. Considering the mitigating

circumstances, the period already undergone by the appellant in this case

shall be taken as his substantive sentence. Sentence order stands modified

to that extent.

7. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Copy of

this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and

necessary action. Trial court record be sent back along with a copy of this

order. The appellant shall be released forthwith if not required to be

detained in any other case.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE APRIL 06, 2015 sa