Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sahil Rana vs State Of Haryana on 16 October, 2024
CRA-S-1354-2020 & other connected cases -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on:- 05.09.2024
Pronounced on:- 16.10.2024
(1)
CRA-S-1354-2020
Sahil Rana ....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana ....Respondent
(2)
CRA-S-199-2021
Gaurav alias Roda ....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana ....Respondent
(3)
CRA-S-231-2021 (O&M)
Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi ....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana ....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present:- Mr. S.K. Tripathi, Advocate
for the appellant in CRA-S-1354-2020.
Mr. L. M. Gulati, Advocate with
Ms. Divya Gulati, Advocate,
Mr. Satwinder Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Ashwani Kattar, Advocate
for the appellant in CRA-S-199-2021.
Mr. Preetinder S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
for the appellant in CRA-S-231-2021.
Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG, Haryana.
*****
AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
1. All three appeals, CRA-S-1354-2020, CRA-S-199-2021 and
CRA-S-231-2021 as referred above arising out of common judgment of
CRA-S-1354-2020 & other connected cases -2-
conviction and order of sentence dated 26.02.2020 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge (I)-cum-Presiding Officer, Children Court,
Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri were taken up together with the consent of
learned counsel for parties.
2. Appellants/convicts in CRA-S-1354-2020, CRA-S-199-2021
and CRA-S-231-2021 namely Sahil Rana, Gaurav alias Roda and
Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi have filed their respective appeals against
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.02.2020 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge (I)-cum-Presiding Officer, Children
Court, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri in Sessions Case bearing No.46 of 2017,
title "State Vs. Sahil Rana and others" vide which Sahil Rana, Gaurav alias
Roda and Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi are sentenced as under :-
Name of Offence Period of sentence Fine In default of
Convict(s) fine
U/s 307 read To undergo rigorous Rs. 10,000/- To undergo
with Section imprisonment for a each simple
1. Sahil Rana 34 IPC period of ten years imprisonment
each for one year
2. Gaurav alias each
Roda U/s 25 of To undergo rigorous Rs. 7,000/- To undergo
Arms Act, imprisonment for a each simple
3. Bhupinder Singh 1959 period of seven years imprisonment
alias Bhuppi each for six months
each
3. Brief facts of the case are on 04.01.2017, Inspector/SHO Sunil
Kumar, Police Station City Jagadhri alongwith other police officials was
present at Police Station, when he received a telephonic message regarding
firing incident which took place at Court Complex, Jagadhri. On receipt of
this information, Inspector/SHO Sunil Kumar alongwith other police
officials reached Court Complex, Jagadhri, where he came to know that
LALIT SHARMA Monu Rana (accused in another criminal case) and SI Joginder Singh
CRA-S-1354-2020 & other connected cases -3-
sustained gun shot injuries and were taken to Gaba Hospital, Yamuna
Nagar. On this, Inspector Sunil Kumar alongwith other police officials
reached Gaba Hospital where he recorded statement of SI Joginder Singh,
after obtaining fitness report from concerned doctor. In his statement, SI
Joginder Singh stated that on 04.01.2017, he was sitting outside at the door
of Court of Sandeep Garg, Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri and was
going through a file for giving his statement in Court. A police personnel
alongwith accused Shamsher alias Monu Rana passed by him. On inquiry,
he disclosed that he was taking Monu Rana who wanted to go to Toilet. In
the meantime, a young boy wearing yellow coloured Turban came from
stairs and fired gun shots at Shamsher Singh alias Monu Rana. SI Joginder
Singh tried to catch hold of said boy and in the meantime, another boy
from behind fired a shot which hit him in the leg. Due to firing in Court
complex there was chaos and people present in Court complex tried to save
themselves. Taking advantage of crowd, said boys ran away from there.
Police officials present in Court complex chased said boys and one of them
was caught within the Court premises. He disclosed his name as Sahil son
of Vikram Singh resident of Shehjadpur. He further disclosed name of
another assailant as Gaurav resident of Barwala.
4. Investigation was commenced. Rough site plan of place of
occurrence was prepared and two empty cartridges, 10 live cartrdiges
alongwith .32 bore and .315 bore pistols were taken into police possession.
Medical record was collected. Other formalities were completed. Sahil
Rana was declared Juvenile vide order dated 23.02.2017. Later on, Sahil
Rana was declared as adult by Juvenile Justice Board, Yamuna Nagar at
CRA-S-1354-2020 & other connected cases -4-
Jagadhri vide order dated 04.08.2017 and challan was presented against
him accordingly and was tried by Children Court, Yamuna Nagar at
Jagadhri.
During further investigation, on 01.08.2018, SI Gurdarshan
Singh issued production warrants of accused Bhupinder Singh Bhuppi and
Gaurav alias Roda and on 13.08.2018, both accused were arrested. On the
disclosure statement suffered by accused Gaurav alias Roda dated
14.08.2018, one country made pistol (Desi Katta) having one live cartridge
was recovered, which was taken into police possession. Similarly, on the
disclosure statement of accused Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi recorded on
17.08.2018, one country made pistol (Desi Katta) and one live cartridge
were recovered. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion
of necessary formalities, supplementary challan was later presented against
Gaurav alias Roda and Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi.
5. Initially accused Sahil Rana was supplied complete set of
copies of challan report as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and
accordingly, he was charge-sheeted on 05.09.2017 for the commission of
offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and
under Section 25 of Arms Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
6. On receipt of supplementary challan qua accused Bhupinder
Singh alias Bhuppi and Gaurav alias Roda, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Yamuna Nagar, vide its order dated 16.10.2018, committed the case
to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar for trial. After
finding prima facie case against accused Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi and
CRA-S-1354-2020 & other connected cases -5-
Gaurav alias Roda, learned trial Court framed charge-sheet dated
28.01.2019 under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and under
Section 25 of Arms Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated
06.03.2019 clubbed supplementary challan bearing case No. SC/46 titled
"State Versus Bhupinder" arising from same FIR filed against Bhupinder
Singh alias Bhuppi and Gaurav alias Roda with main case file of Sahil
Rana for further proceedings.
8. In order to prove the facts of case qua accused Sahil Rana and
accused Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi and Gaurav alias Roda, witnesses
were examined and re-examined in the presence of accused as under;
SI Joginder Singh as PW1, Mulk Raj, Draftsman as PW2, Dr. Nikhil
Mehta as PW3/PW24, Dr. Vandana as PW4/PW23, Kuldeep Singh,
Criminal Ahlmad as PW5, Ishwar Singh as PW6, ASI Subhash
Chand as PW7, SI (Retd.) Devi Dayal as PW8, ESI Rulda Ram as
PW9, ASI Rajesh Kumar as PW10, EHC Suresh Pal as PW11,
Inspector/DSP Pardeep Kumar as PW12/PW22, SI Yashpal as
PW13/PW16, Shamsher Singh alias Monu Rana as PW14, SPO
Manjeet Singh as PW15, EHC Randeep Singh as PW17, ASI Amar
Singh as PW18, SI (Retd.) Davinder Singh as PW19, ASI Pawan
Kumar as PW20, Ct. Sandeep Singh as PW21, Inspector Sunil
Kumar as PW25, EHC Surender Singh as PW26, EHC Gurvinder
Singh as PW27, SI Gurdarshan Singh as PW28 and Rajeev Kumar as
PW29.
CRA-S-1354-2020 & other connected cases -6-
9. Statements of all the accused were recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. While denying all incriminating evidence put to them, they pleaded
innocence and false implication. They alleged that they never suffered any
disclosure statement. Nothing was recovered from them. No identification
parade was got conducted by police. Police has planted country made pistol
(Desi Katta) upon them.
10. In defence evidence, accused Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi
and Gaurav alias Roda examined Mukesh Kumar, Criminal Ahlmad as
DW1 and Ashok Kumar as DW2 and thereafter, closed defence evidence.
11. After hearing arguments advanced by learned Public
Prosecutor for State and learned counsels representing accused persons, all
accused Sahil Rana, Gaurav alias Roda and Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi
were convicted and sentenced for the commission of offence punishable
under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 25 of
Arms Act, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
26.02.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at
Jagadhri.
12. Feeling aggrieved of this judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, aforementioned appeals have been filed by convicts Sahil Rana,
Gaurav alias Roda and Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi.
13. Learned counsel for appellant/convict Sahil Rana in CRA-S-
1354-2020 argued that judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by learned trial Court is not on sound footing. Trial Court has
misread the facts established on record. All relevant facts were not
considered in its right perspective. It is totally ignored that appellant Sahil
CRA-S-1354-2020 & other connected cases -7-
Rana was juvenile at the time of commission of alleged offence on
04.01.2017. His date of birth is 23.10.1999. Even then he has been tried as
an adult and has been convicted for maximum sentence of 10 years. Case
of prosecution is based on the statement of SI Joginder Singh who did not
know the appellant/convict earlier. In order to establish the identity of
appellant/convict, Investigating Officer did not make any effort to conduct
test identification parade. As per prosecution case, present
appellant/convict was apprehended from Court premises by police officials.
Entire case of prosecution is based on statement of complainant SI Joginder
Singh, who himself is a police official. There is no independent
corroboration to prosecution story. In fact, appellant/convict did not suffer
any disclosure statement nor he named other accused. On the basis of
alleged disclosure statement, false recovery of weapon is planted on him.
Considering material inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses, prosecution had failed to prove his guilt beyond shadows of
reasonable doubt. Documents produced in defence were totally ignored. In
fact, Shamsher Singh alias Monu Rana is a life convict in another criminal
case in which Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi, one of the co-accused, was a
witness. Due to enmity, he along with other co-accused is falsely
implicated. It is submitted that judgment of conviction and order of
sentence qua present appellant/convict Sahil Rana, who was a juvenile, is
not on sound footing and is liable to be set aside by accepting the present
appeal.
14. In addition to aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for
appellant/convict Gaurav alias Roda in CRA-S-199-2021 argued that
CRA-S-1354-2020 & other connected cases -8-
appellant/convict was not named in FIR nor he was arrested at the spot.
Investigating Agency alleged that Sahil Rana co-accused and present
appellant/convict had attacked Shamsher Singh alias Monu Rana. After the
occurrence, Sahil Rana co-accused was allegedly apprehended, whereas
present appellant/convict was allegedly named by Sahil Rana. Challan was
presented against Sahil Rana alone and thereafter supplementary challan
was presented against present appellant/convict and co-accused Bhupinder
Singh alias Bhuppi. Even though appellant/convict was not named in FIR
but during the course of evidence, SI Joginder Singh complainant as PW1
identified present appellant/convict. So far as testimony of Shamsher Singh
alias Monu Rana as PW14 is concerned, his version is contradictory
regarding the role attributed to present appellant/convict. Initially, he
claimed that present appellant/convict fired shot towards police official but
later on, he claimed that a boy named Prince had fired shot at SI Joginder
Singh. Therefore, there is material contradiction in the version of
prosecution witnesses and same cannot be relied upon. Present
appellant/convict has not suffered any disclosure statement before
Investigating Officer nor any recovery was effected on the basis of said
disclosure statement. False recovery is planted on him. There are several
inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, therefore, it
does not inspire confidence. In fact, prosecution had failed to prove the
guilt of present appellant/convict beyond the shadows of reasonable doubt.
Ignoring all these facts, appellant/convict has been wrongly convicted by
learned trial Court. Therefore, judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by learned trial Court may be set aside by accepting the
CRA-S-1354-2020 & other connected cases -9-
present appeal.
15. Learned counsel for appellant/convict Bhupinder Singh alias
Bhuppi in CRA-S-231-2021 argued that initially present appellant was not
named in FIR. As per prosecution case, co-accused Sahil Rana was
apprehended by police officials in Court premises, whereas Gaurav alias
Roda, other co-accused, was named by accused Sahil Rana.
Appellant/convict Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi was neither named in FIR
nor present at the spot. Learned counsel referred to the statement of SI
Joginder Singh, complainant PW1, who did not even identify present
appellant. It has come in his statement that he did not see appellant/convict
at the time of alleged occurrence. Shamsher Singh alias Monu Rana, as
PW14 falsely named present appellant/convict due to previous enmity.
Appellant/convict Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi examined Mukesh
Kumar, Criminal Ahlmad as DW1, who has proved on record statement of
Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi examined as PW21 in Sessions Trial titled
"State Vs. Bhupesh Rana and others" in FIR No. 110 dated 07.08.2014
under Sections 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 216, 120-B and 212 of IPC and
Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Barara, Tehsil Ambala. List of
witnesses in said trial is Ex. D2. In aforesaid trial, complainant Shamsher
Singh alias Monu Rana was convicted. Copy of judgment dated 01.08.2019
is Ex. D3. Due to previous enmity, present appellant/convict was wrongly
named by Shamsher Singh alias Monu Rana as PW14. In light of this, his
testimony regarding role of present appellant/convict cannot be safely
relied upon. It is pointed out that present appellant/convict was arrested
subsequently. He did not suffer any disclosure statement to police nor any
CRA-S-1354-2020 & other connected cases -10-
recovery was effected. False recovery of weapon is planted on him to
implicate him in this case. As per prosecution case, role of conspiracy is
alleged qua present appellant/convict but in order to substantiate alleged
conspiracy, there is no convincing evidence on record. Disclosure
statements recorded by Investigating Agency regarding alleged occurrence
and role of present appellant/convict are not admissible in evidence.
Learned trial Court while holding appellant/convict Bhupinder Singh alias
Bhuppi guilty for the offence, failed to consider these facts. In fact,
appellant/convict has not committed any offence. He was falsely implicated
in this case and later on convicted on the basis of inconsistent testimonies
of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, appellant/convict deserves acquittal by
setting aside impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed against him.
16. Learned counsel representing State of Haryana argued that
prosecution had led convincing evidence on record to prove the guilt of all
appellants/convicts and they were rightly held guilty under Section 307
read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act. Entire prosecution
case is proved by examining both injured i.e. SI Joginder Singh,
complainant as PW1 and Shamsher Singh alias Monu Rana as PW14. Both
of them suffered firearm injuries. Their MLRs are proved on record by Dr.
Vandana of Gaba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar as PW4/PW23. Shamsher Singh
alias Monu Rana was referred to PGI, Chandigarh for further treatment.
His medical record is proved by Dr. Nikhil Mehta as PW3/PW24. It is
pointed out that Sahil Rana and Gaurav alias Roda were duly identified by
both injured. Sahil Rana was apprehended immediately after the
CRA-S-1354-2020 & other connected cases -11-
occurrence, whereas Gaurav alias Roda was arrested subsequently. Alleged
occurrence took place at the instance of Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi.
Appellants/convicts hatched a conspiracy to end the life of Shamsher Singh
alias Monu Rana while he was produced in Court in custody. Entire
investigation carried out by police is duly proved on record by examining
Inspector Sunil Kumar as PW25 and SI Gurdarshan Singh as PW28,
supported by recovery witnesses. Weapons of offence were recovered from
accused Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi and Gaurav alias Roda. Said
weapons were duly tested by ASI Amar Singh, Armour as PW-18 and the
test reports are Ex.P23/P41 and Ex.P24/P40 respectively. There is a report
of Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Karnal (Haryana) Ex. PX,
which further shows that bullets recovered from the body of Shamsher
Singh alias Monu Rana and piece of lead, duly matched with country made
pistol marked W/1, recovered from appellant/convict Sahil Rana which
further connects him with said occurrence. Therefore, there is convincing
evidence on record to hold appellants/convicts guilty for the charges
framed against them and they were rightly convicted and sentenced under
Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act.
Appeals preferred by aforesaid appellants are without merit and deserve
dismissal.
17. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel
for appellants/convicts and learned counsel representing State of Haryana
and have gone through detailed evidence on record with their able
assistance.
CRA-S-1354-2020 & other connected cases -12-
Firstly, I will deal with appeals i.e. CRA-S-1354-2020 and
CRA-S-199-2021 preferred by appellants Sahil Rana and Gaurav alias
Roda respectively. As per the facts of case narrated by SI Joginder Singh,
Complainant, on 04.01.2017, he was sitting outside at the door of Court of
Sandeep Garg, Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri and was going through
a file for giving his statement in Court. A police personnel alongwith
accused Shamsher Singh alias Monu Rana passed by him. On inquiry, he
disclosed that he was taking Shamsher Singh alias Monu Rana who wanted
to go to toilet. In the meantime, a young boy wearing yellow coloured
Turban came from stairs and fired shots at Shamsher Singh alias Monu
Rana. SI Joginder Singh tried to catch hold of said boy and in the
meantime, another boy from behind fired a shot which hit him in the leg.
Due to firing in Court complex there was chaos and people present in Court
complex tried to save themselves. Taking advantage of crowd, said boys
ran away from there. Police officials present in Court complex chased said
boys and one of them was caught within the Court premises. He disclosed
his name as Sahil son of Vikram Singh resident of Shehjadpur. He further
disclosed name of another assailant as Gaurav resident of Barwala.
Initially, challan was presented against Sahil Rana who was declared
juvenile and thereafter his trial was conducted, treating him as an adult.
Supplementary challan was later presented against Gaurav alias Roda and
Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi. As a result, all appellants/convicts were
tried together before Trial Court.
In order to prove the guilt of accused persons, prosecution
examined SI Joginder Singh, complainant as PW1, who confirmed
CRA-S-1354-2020 & other connected cases -13-
aforesaid statement given before Investigating Agency Ex. P1 and further
identified Sahil Rana as accused who was wearing yellow coloured Turban
and had fired at Shamsher Singh alias Monu Rana and further identified
Gaurav alias Roda as accused who had fired at him from behind. Similarly,
Shamsher Singh alias Monu Rana stepped into witness box as PW14.
During his statement recorded on 01.02.2018, he stated that Sahil Rana
fired shot at him which hit on his back and he fell backwards, on this Sahil
Rana claimed that work was done and that they should run away. Another
boy, Prince, standing in the group, fired a shot at police party. As per the
version of Shamsher Singh alias Monu Rana, on that day, Sahil Rana,
Gaurav, Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi, Prince, Manjeet, Anil and Ashok
were present outside the Court when the said occurrence took place. Later
on, statement of Shamsher Singh alias Monu Rana PW14 was again
recorded on presentation of supplementary challan of Gaurav alias Roda
and Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi. At this stage, he claimed that Bhupinder
Singh alias Bhuppi fired gunshot at him, which hit his right arm, whereas
Sahil Rana fired a shot which hit on his back/waist. Regarding Prince, he
claimed that Prince had fired a shot at police.
Therefore, Shamsher Singh alias Monu Rana PW14 has given
different version as compared to SI Joginder Singh complainant, PW1
regarding role of Gaurav alias Roda and Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi. So
far as role of Sahil Rana is concerned, it is consistently claimed by both
witnesses that he fired shot at Shamsher Singh alias Monu Rana. It cannot
be ignored that Sahil Rana was apprehended on the same day in Court
premises and he named another assailant as Gaurav. SI Joginder Singh
CRA-S-1354-2020 & other connected cases -14-
PW1 categorically stated that when he tried to apprehend Sahil Rana,
another boy fired shot from his backside which hit on his leg. When
statement of SI Joginder Singh as PW1 was recorded in Court, he identified
Sahil Rana as well as Gaurav alias Roda, who had fired shot at him.
Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts together, it is clear that it was
Sahil Rana who had fired shot at Shamsher Singh alias Monu Rana (PW14)
and Gaurav alias Roda, fired shot at SI Joginder Singh complainant (PW1).
Presence of appellants Sahil Rana and Gaurav alias Roda at the time of
occurrence is duly established on record. Said occurrence took place in
Court complex at around 11:30 AM during peak hours, when there is
maximum footfall in the Courts. SI Joginder Singh complainant (PW1) had
clearly seen the assailants, whereas Shamsher Singh alias Monu Rana
(PW14) knew them prior to the occurrence. Under these circumstances, no
purpose would have been served by holding test identification parade. SI
Joginder Singh, complainant was injured in the occurrence. He had no
enmity with any of the appellants/convicts, thus his testimony cannot be
ignored.
18. Said occurrence is further proved on record by examining ESI
Rulda Ram as PW-9, who confirmed that on 04.01.2017, he had produced
Shamsher Singh alias Monu Rana (PW14) along with other accused from
Central Jail, Ambala to District Courts Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, in a case
pending in the Court of Sandeep Garg, Additional Sessions Judge,
Jagadhri, in FIR No. 408/2015 under Sections 148, 149 and 307 of IPC and
Section 25-54 of Arms Act, Police Station Farakpur. He had handed over
Shamsher Singh alias Monu Rana to EHC Suresh, who was examined as
CRA-S-1354-2020 & other connected cases -15-
PW11 and SPO Manjeet Singh, who was examined as PW15. He was to
produce other accused brought by him in other Courts. After 15-20
minutes, he heard noise of firing and when he reached in front of the Court
of Sandeep Garg, Additional Sessions Judge, he saw that Shamsher Singh
alias Monu Rana had received firearm injury while being taken to Toilet.
Said occurrence is also proved on record by SPO Manjeet Singh as PW15
and EHC Suresh Pal as PW11. EHC Suresh Pal PW11 identified Sahil
Rana, accused facing trial in this case. He confirmed that he was
apprehended by police officials and fire arm was also recovered. SPO
Manjeet Singh PW-15 claimed that he could not see the assailant as shot
was fired from his backside.
19. Prosecution examined Dr. Vandana from Gaba Hospital,
Yamuna Nagar as PW4/PW23 where she deposed that on 04.01.2017,
Shamsher Singh alias Monu Rana and Joginder Singh were admitted in
their hospital i.e. Gaba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. She had sent Rukka to
police Ex. P4/P46. Police moved an application Ex. P5/P47 to know about
the fitness of both injured. As per her opinion Ex. P6/P48, Joginder Singh
was declared fit to make statement, whereas Shamsher Singh alias Monu
Rana was declared unfit to make statement. MLR of SI Joginder Singh is
Ex. P7/P49, according to which he suffered two injuries i.e. entry and exit
wound by gunshot over left leg above ankle. As per MLR of Shamsher
Singh alias Monu Rana Ex. P8/P50, he suffered three injuries i.e. entry
wound over right forearm, entry wound over back and he also faced
difficulty in breathing. All injuries suffered by aforesaid injured were
caused by gunshots and were declared grievous in nature.
CRA-S-1354-2020 & other connected cases -16-
20. Investigation carried out by police is established from the
testimony of Inspector Sunil Kumar PW25, who recorded statement of
injured SI Joginder Singh Ex. P1. He made his endorsement Ex. P42 and
Rukka was sent to police station for registration of formal FIR. ASI
Subhash Chand as PW7 has proved registration of FIR on the basis of
statement of SI Joginder Singh. Inspector Sunil Kumar as PW25 prepared
site plan of place of occurrence, which is Ex. P43. SI Davinder Singh as
PW19, SI Yashpal as PW13/PW16 apprehended Sahil Rana, who was
wearing an orange Turban. Personal search of Sahil Rana was conducted
by SI Yashpal PW13/PW16 and one pistol in his hand and another country
made pistol and one magazine having eight live cartridges and two
cartridges were found in the pocket of his pants, were recovered. Outer
sketch of .32 bore pistol is Ex. P25 and outer sketch of pistol .315 bore is
Ex. P26. These weapons sealed in separate parcels and live cartridges total
ten in number were also sealed in separate parcels and were taken into
police position vide recovery memos Ex. P27 and Ex. P28 respectively.
Aforesaid weapons and two magazines were also produced in Court. ASI
Pawan Kumar PW20 recovery witness also confirmed their version. ASI
Rajesh Kumar as PW10 had collected parcel of bullets recovered from the
body of Shamsher Singh alias Monu Rana which was taken into police
position vide recovery memo Ex. P15. There is report of Forensic Science
Laboratory Ex. PX, according to which country made pistol .315 bore
marked as W/1, one country made pistol marked as W/2 alongwith extra
magazine, recovered from Sahil Rana were found to be in working order.
Two fire cartridges from the place of occurrence of 7.65 mm marked as C/1
CRA-S-1354-2020 & other connected cases -17-
and C/2 were fired from country made pistol marked W/2. It was further
observed that one .315 bore fired cartridge case, fired bullet recovered from
the body of Shamsher Singh alias Monu Rana BC/1, .315 deformed fired
bullet BC/2 and lead piece BC/3 were fired from country made pistol .315
bore marked as W/1, recovered from Sahil Rana. Therefore, recovery of
aforesaid country made pistols from the possession of Sahil Rana,
appellant/convict coupled with report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.
PX duly connects appellant/convict Sahil Rana with occurrence which took
place on 04.01.2017. To prosecute Sahil under Section 25 of Arms Act,
prosecution examined Ishwar Singh, Reader to District Magistrate, Yamuna
Nagar as PW6, who has proved sanction order dated 23.02.2017, Ex. P10,
duly signed by then District Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar.
21. Prosecution examined SI Gurdarshan Singh as PW28, who
deposed that investigation of this case came into his hands on 01.08.2018.
He procured custody of Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi and Gaurav alias
Roda by taking their production warrants. On 13.08.2018, they were
produced before Illaqa Magistrate. On 14.08.2018, Gaurav alias Roda was
interrogated who suffered disclosure statement Ex. P46, duly signed by him
and witnessed by EHC Surender Kumar PW26 and Constable Vipan
Kumar. As per his disclosure statement, he recovered one country made
pistol (Desi Katta) having one live cartridge from bushes near bridge of
Yamuna river. Outer sketch of weapon is Ex. P48. It was sealed in a parcel
and was taken into police possession vide recovery memo Ex. P47. Site
plan of place of recovery is Ex. P51. EHC Surender Singh as PW26 has
also confirmed aforesaid disclosure statement on the basis of which
CRA-S-1354-2020 & other connected cases -18-
weapon was recovered from the possession of Gaurav alias Roda. ASI
Amar Singh, PW-18, has proved test report of aforesaid .315 bore country
made pistol, which is Ex. P24/P40. Aaccused was not having any permit or
license for carrying the weapon. To prosecute under Section 25 of Arms
Act, prosecution examined Rajeev Kumar, Ahlmad, District Magistrate,
Yamuna Nagar, PW29, who has proved sanction order dated 11.10.2018,
which is Ex. P55, duly signed by then District Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar.
22. Therefore, considering aforesaid evidence led by prosecution,
it is duly established that both Sahil Rana and Gaurav alias Roda were
involved in occurrence. Sahil Rana fired shot at Shamsher Singh alias
Monu Rana and to help Sahil Rana in his escape, Gaurav alias Roda fired
shot at SI Joginder Singh. Both tried to escape from place of occurrence but
Sahil Rana was apprehended by the police officials present in the Court
Complex but Gaurav alias Roda managed to escape who was arrested in
this case later on.
In view of evidence led by prosecution, learned trial Court
rightly held both appellants/convicts Sahil Rana and Gaurav alias Roda
guilty under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of
Arms Act. Considering the manner in which offence was committed and its
gravity, sentence imposed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna
Nagar at Jagadhri on both appellants/convicts Sahil Rana and Gaurav alias
Roda does not require any interference. Consequently, judgment of
conviction and order of sentence qua Sahil Rana and Gaurav alias
Roda is accordingly upheld and appeals i.e. CRA-S-1354-2020 and
CRA-S-199-2021 preferred by them are accordingly dismissed.
CRA-S-1354-2020 & other connected cases -19-
23. Appellant/convict Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi is also
convicted for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC
and Section 25 of Arms Act. As per the facts detailed above, Bhupinder
Singh alias Bhuppi was not present on the spot. SI Joginder Singh
complainant as PW1 categorically stated that he had not seen Bhupinder
Singh alias Bhuppi alongwith other accused on that day. He further stated
that he did not see other persons present alongwith accused Sahil Rana and
Gaurav alias Roda. So far as testimony of Shamsher Singh alias Monu
Rana is concerned, in his statement recorded on 01.02.2018, he claimed
that Sahil Rana and Gaurav alias Roda had come along with Bhupinder
Singh alias Bhuppi, Prince, Manjeet, Anil and Ashok. During cross-
examination, he conceded that he did not disclose about the presence of
aforesaid persons outside the Court as he did not expect that they would
attack him. Later on, when this witness appeared on 04.02.2020, he
attributed role to Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi, stating that he fired shot at
him which hit on his right arm. Therefore, Shamsher Singh alias Monu
Rana PW14, in his subsequent statement changed his version, naming
Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi and attributing specific role to him. At initial
stage, he was neither claimed to be present on the spot nor he was named
by co-convict Sahil Rana. Accused have led evidence in defence by
examining Mukesh Kumar, Ahlmad, DW1 who confirmed that Bhupinder
Singh alias Bhuppi was witness in FIR No. 110 dated 07.08.2014 under
Sections 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 216, 120-B and 212 of IPC and Section
25 of Arms Act, Police Station Barara, Tehsil Ambala, titled "State vs.
Bhupesh Rana and others". Copy of statement of Bhupinder Singh alias
CRA-S-1354-2020 & other connected cases -20-
Bhuppi as PW21 is Ex.D1 and copy of judgment dated 01.08.2019 is Ex.
D3. Therefore, Shamsher Singh alias Monu Rana had enmity towards
Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi. Prosecution claimed that occurrence took
place at the instance of Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi in connivance with
Sahil Rana and Gaurav alias Roda. Motive claimed by prosecution for
commission of said offence qua Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi is a double
edged weapon. It can be a reason for commission of offence and it can also
be a reason for false implication. In light of this, testimony of Shamsher
Singh alias Monu Rana PW14, naming Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi for
firing shot at him in his subsequent statement cannot be safely relied upon.
There cannot be a direct evidence to prove the conspiracy, even then,
prosecution is required to lead some convincing evidence on record to
establish element of conspiracy. Prosecution has relied upon the disclosure
statement of Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi dated 13.08.2018 Ex.P49
recorded by SI Gurdarshan Singh as PW28. Said disclosure statement
recorded by police official is hit by the provisions of Section 26 of Indian
Evidence Act and same is not admissible in evidence.
Section 26 and 27 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as
under:-
"26. Confession by accused while in custody of police not
to be proved against him. - No confession made by any
person whilst he is in the custody of a police-officer, unless it
be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be
proved as against such person.
xxx xxx xxx
CRA-S-1354-2020 & other connected cases -21-
27. How much of information received from accused may
be proved. - Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as
discovered in consequence of information received from a
person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police
officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a
confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby
discovered, may be proved."
Therefore, disclosure statements recorded by Investigating
Officers from time to time during course of investigation about occurrence
are not admissible. Gainful reference can be made to the judgment of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1030/2023, case title
"Manoj Kumar Soni Versus State of Madhya Pradesh". Relevant paras
No. 22 and 24 thereof read as under :-
"22. A doubt looms: can disclosure statements per se,
unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, be deemed
adequate to secure a conviction? We find it implausible.
Although disclosure statements hold significance as a
contributing factor in unriddling a case, in our opinion, they
are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and
without anything more to bring home the charges beyond
reasonable doubt.
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
24. The law on the evidentiary value of disclosure statements
of co-accused too is settled; the courts have hesitated to place
reliance solely on disclosure statements of co-accused and
used them merely to support the conviction or, as Sir
Lawrence Jenkins observed in Emperor vs. Lalit Mohan
Chuckerburty, to "lend assurance to other evidence against a
co-accused". In Haricharan Kurmi vs. State of Bihar, this
LALIT SHARMA Court, speaking through the Constitution Bench, elaborated
CRA-S-1354-2020 & other connected cases -22-
upon the approach to be adopted by courts when dealing with
disclosure statements:
13. ...In dealing with a criminal case where the prosecution
relies upon the confession of one accused person against
another accused person, the proper approach to adopt is to
consider the other evidence against such an accused person,
and if the said evidence appears to be satisfactory and the
court is inclined to hold that the said evidence may sustain the
charge framed against the said accused person, the court turns
to the confession with a view to assure itself that the
conclusion which it is inclined to draw from the other evidence
is right."
Therefore, on the basis of said disclosure statement, Ex. P49
proved on record by SI Gurdarshan Singh PW28 and EHC Gurvinder
Singh PW27, appellant/convict Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi cannot be
connected with the occurrence which took place in Court complex on
04.01.2017. It was for prosecution to bring home the guilt of
appellant/convict Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi beyond the shadows of
reasonable doubt, which prosecution has failed to do. Therefore, in my
opinion, conviction of appellant/convict Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi
under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC is not on sound footing
and he is accordingly acquitted of this charge framed against him by
giving him benefit of doubt.
So far as recovery of country made pistol alongwith one live
cartridge on the basis of his disclosure statement Ex. P34 is concerned,
same is duly proved on file by SI Gurdarshan Singh as PW28 and recovery
witness Ct. Sandeep Singh PW-21. Aforesaid witnesses consistently stated
CRA-S-1354-2020 & other connected cases -23-
that on the basis of disclosure statement Ex.P34 on 17.08.2018, one
country made pistol (Desi Katta) alongwith one live cartridge were
recovered by Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi, concealed under the bushes
near bridge of Yamuna River. Outer sketch of weapon is Ex.P35 and said
country made pistol alongwith one live cartridge were taken into police
possession vide recovery memo Ex.P37. ASI Amar Singh PW18, the
Armour has proved test report of country made pistol of .32 bore Ex.
P23/P47. ASI Rajeev Kumar, Ahlmad, District Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar
as PW29 has proved sanction order dated 11.10.2019 qua Bhupinder Singh
alias Bhupi, Ex. P56, duly signed by then District Magistrate, Yamuna
Nagar. From the evidence led by prosecution, it is established that
Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi was in possession of an illegal unauthorized
weapon without any permit or license. Therefore, his conviction under
Section 25 of Arms Act does not require any interference and same is
accordingly upheld.
With this observation, appeal i.e. CRA-S-231-2021
preferred by appellant/convict Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi is partly
allowed.
24. All appeals referred above are accordingly, disposed of.
25. Pending application(s) if any, in all case(s), also stands
disposed of accordingly.
16.10.2024 (AMARJOT BHATTI)
lalit JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
