Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Imran And Others on 5 September, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:119065
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
261
CRM-A-462-MA-2016
Date of decision: 05.09.2024
State of Haryana
....Appellant
V/s
Imran and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, AAG, Haryana,
for the appellant.
Mr. Shiva Khurmi, Advocate,
Amicus Curiae on behalf of the respondents.
*****
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
CRM-7799-2016
This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read
with Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for condonation of delay of 90 days in filing
the appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Delay of 90 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
CRM-A-462-MA-2016
1. The State of Haryana is before this Court to challenge the
judgement/order dated 06.08.2015 vide which the learned trial Court
acquitted the respondent-accused by extending the benefit of doubt to
them.
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:119065
2. Since none is appearing on behalf of the respondent, Mr.
Shiva Khurmi, Advocate, enrolment No.1453-2015, who is present in
Court, is appointed as amicus curiae to assist this Court on behalf of
respondent.
3. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, concerns a case wherein the
State of Haryana brought charges against the respondent-accused alleging
that they were conspiring to commit a robbery and were then found in
possession of illegal arms and ammunition on 26th of March 2015. The trial
Court upon examination of the material on record including the evidence
led by the prosecution extended the benefit of doubt to the respondent-
accused by holding that there was not sufficient corroboration of the
evidence led.
4. As per the case set up by the prosecution, on 26th of March
2015, ASI Ram Kumar (PW-5) informed Head Constable Azad Singh
telephonically, requesting that an official be sent to the Shadipur Toll Tax
Barrier. ASI Rajesh Kumar (PW-2) met PW-5 ASI Ram Kumar and other
police personnel. ASI Ram Kumar gave information about a robbery being
planned by the respondent-accused near Panjupur bridge. Acting on this
tip, a police raiding party was formed and the accused-respondents were
apprehended at the scene.
5. Upon their arrest, respondent-Imran was allegedly found with
a country made pistol, respondent-Furkan was holding an iron rod, and
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:119065
respondent-Irfan had a torch. A live cartridge was also recovered from
respondent-Imran. The recovered items were seized and sealed, leading to
the registration of FIR Exhibit-PH/1. The seized items were subsequently
examined by PW-1-Bhim Singh (Armourer), who reported on the
functionality of the fire-arms. After completion of investigation and
obtaining necessary sanctions, the investigating agency filed a charge-
sheet. After the challan was presented, the accused-respondents were
charged under Sections 398, 401 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In support of his case, the prosecution examined as many as 5
witnesses, PW-1-Bhim Singh (Armourer), PW-2-ASI Rajesh Kumar, PW-
3- Raj Kumar, Reader, PW-4 H.C.Raj Kumar and PW-5- ASI Ram Kumar.
7. In the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the
respondents-accused pleaded their innocence.
8. In defence, one DW-1 Smt. Sagiran was examined who
deposed that on 26.03.2015 at about 3:00/4:00 p.m., Furkan and Imran had
come to her room after attending a marriage, from where they were then
apprehended by the police.
9. The case of the prosecution relied primarily on the testimonies
of PW-2 ASI Rajesh Kumar, PW-4-HC Raj Kumar and PW-5 ASI Ram
Kumar, who detailed the arrest and recovery of the weapons. Additionally,
the report by PW-1 Bhim Singh, Armourer was presented to prove that the
recovered fire-arm was operational.
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:119065
10. Learned State counsel has vehemently argued that despite all
the prosecution witnesses being consistent in their testimonies, the trial
Court gravely erred in discarding their testimonies by emphasizing on
certain discrepancies, which however were inconsequential; coupled with
the fact that all the witnesses cited were official witnesses; there was
absence of any independent witness. It has further been argued that mere
non test-firing of the recovered weapon could not be said to be detrimental
to the case of the prosecution.
11. Learned Amicus Curiae has opposed the submissions made by
learned counsel for the appellant-State and argued that the impugned judgment is
a well reasoned one which does not warrant any interference. Learned Amicus
Curiae has highlighted significant discrepancies, particularly regarding the
location where the respondent-accused were allegedly planning the robbery and
where they were subsequently apprehended with a fire-arm, iron rod and torch. It
has been asserted by the learned Amicus Curiae that these inconsistencies are
crucial when compared with the varying testimonies of prosecution witnesses,
who provided conflicting accounts of the location of the accused on the fateful
day. Moreover, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the prosecution had
presented two contradictory versions. One prosecution witness PW-2-ASI Raj
Kumar stated that the accused had made no attempt to flee when the police
arrived following secret information, while another witness, PW-4-HC Raj
Kumar claimed to the contrary, asserting that the accused did attempt to escape.
It has been argued that this clearly points to a fabricated case, as the respondent-
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:119065
accused were not at the location from which they were allegedly apprehended.
Instead, they were present in the room of DW-1-Smt. Sagiran, who testified
before the trial Court that on the fateful day accused-Furkan and Imran had
returned from a wedding and were in her room when the police arrived and
arrested them.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
relevant material placed on record.
13. Upon a careful perusal of the evidence and other material on
record, this Court has no hesitation in concurring with the findings
recorded by the learned trial Court that there are indeed significant
inconsistencies and deficiencies in the case of the prosecution, which
undoubtedly undermine the reliability of the evidence presented against the
accused.
14. First, the testimonies of the key prosecution witnesses PW-2
ASI Raj Kumar and PW-5-ASI Ram Kumar, present conflicting
descriptions of the scene of the arrest. While PW-2- ASI Raj Kumar
described the location as a forest area, PW-5-ASI Ram Kumar, on the other
hand, stated that the respondent-accused were apprehended on a public
road. This material discrepancy raises serious doubts as to the credibility of
the account presented by the prosecution, moreso when as per DW-1- Smt.
Sagiran, the two accused-Furkan and Imran were apprehended from her
room.
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:119065
15. Additionally, although PW-2-ASI Raj Kumar claims to have
sought public witnesses from the nearby Toll area, no names were
recorded. This further casts doubt on the credibility of the prosecution
version.
16. Moreover, the conflicting testimonies regarding the behaviour
of the respondent-accused also raises a big question mark with respect to
the case of the prosecution. While PW2-ASI Raj Kumar stated that the
accused offered no resistance, PW-4-HC Raj Kumar, on the other hand,
testified that the accused attempted to flee. This inconsistency further
severely undermines the narrative of the prosecution.
17. Regarding the recovery of the fire-arm, the prosecution was
not able to conclusively even prove that the recovered fire-arm was
operational at the time of the arrest of the respondents. PW1-Bhim Singh,
Armourer, in his report confirmed the mechanical functionality of the fire-
arm, but the absence of a test fire did create a gap in the case of the
prosecution. Without any definitive proof that the fire-arm was capable of
being used, the charge of illegal possession of a functioning weapon stood
unsubstantiated.
18. The burden of proof in criminal cases rests on the prosecution
to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the
numerous inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses,
lack of independent corroboration, and the failure to conclusively prove the
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:119065
functionality of the weapon creates significant doubt regarding the guilt of
the accused-respondents.
19. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court has no hesitation to
conquer with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court that the
prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof and the benefit of doubt was
rightly extended to the accused.
20. Appeal stands dismissed.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
September 05, 2024 JUDGE
poonam
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
7 of 7
