JASBIR SINGH @ JAVRI @ JABBAR SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

                      [2015] 4 S.C.R. 542


A        JASBIR SINGH @ JAVRI @ JABBAR SINGH
                              v.
                     STATE OF HARYANA

               (Criminal Appeal No.554 of 2015)
B
                       APRIL 06, 2015

        [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]
       Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 399 and 402 rlw. s. 25 of Arms
C Act - Conviction under, by Courts below - On appeal, held:
  In the facts and circumstances of the case, the charges
  against the accused not proved beyond reasonable doubt
  - Hence, the accused is acquitted, by giving him benefit
  of doubt -Arms Act, 1959 - s.25.
0
       Allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1. None of the charges in the present case,
  against the appellant, can be said to have been
E proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is a fit case where
  the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the reasonable
  doubt, and deserves to be acquitted. [Paras 11, 13]
    [548-C; 549-H; 550-A]

F     2. The High Court has erred in law in not taking
  note of the following facts apparent from the ~widence
  on record: (i) In a day light incident within the limits
  of Police Station, there is no public or any other
  independent witness of the arrest of the appellant
G along with other accused from the place of incident
  nor that of the alleged recovery of fire arm said to have
  been made from two of them. (It is not a case where
  arrest or recovery has been made in the presence of

H                            542
 JASBIR SINGH @ JAVRI @ JABBAR SINGH v. STATE 543
                 OF HARYANA

any Gazetted Officer.) (ii) Complainant (PW-6) has            A
himself investigated the crime, as such, the credibility
of the investigation is also doubtful in t!'te present
case, particularly, for the reason that except the police
constables, who are subordinate to him, there is no
other witness to the incident. (iii) It is not natural that   B
the six accused, four of whom were armed with deadly
weapons, neither offered any resistance nor caused
any injury to any of the police personnel before they
are apprehended by the police. (iv) It is strange that all
the accused were wearing blue shirts, as if there was         C
a uniform provided to them. (v) It is hard to believe that
the appellant and three others did not try to run away
as at the time of the noon they must have easily
noticed from a considerable distance that some
                                                              0
policemen are coming towards them. (It is not the case
of the prosecution that police personnel were not in
uniform.) [Para 12) (548-G-H; 549-A-F]

   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 554 of 2015.                                       E

    From the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2014 of the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRA No.
S-1389-SB of 2004.
                                                              F
     D. S. Bali, Shalu Sharma, Rajesh Sharma, Nitin Kumar
for the Appellant.

   Devender Kr. Saini, AAG, Sanjay Kumar Visen for the
Respondent.                                            G

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed
against judgment and order dated 8.8.2014, passed by
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, whereby Criminal H
544         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A Appeal No. S-1389-SB has been dismissed, and conviction
  of accused (appellant) Jasbir Singh @ Javri @ Jabbar
  Singh, recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
  Trek Court, Kamal, has been affirmed in respect of
  offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the
B Indian Penal Code (IPC) and one punishable under Section
  25 of Arms Act. However, the sentence awarded by the trial
  court to the appellant under Section 399 IPC has been
  reduced to the period of imprisonment for five years.

C
                                                  '
          2. Heard learned counsel for the partie' and perused
      the papers on record.

           3 Prosecution story in brief is that on 26.6.2003, PW-6
      Sube Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, Kamal, along with
o     PW-4 Head Constable Ram Singh, PW-1 Constable
      Satish Kumar, and four others, namely, Head Constable Azad
      Singh, Constable Arvind, Constable Mahender Singh and
      Constable Rattan Singh (none of last four examined), was
      on duty in connection with detection of some crime. He
E     received a secret information that appellant Jasbir Singh
      @ Javri @ Jabbar Singh, and co-accused Shamsher Singh,
      Jagpal, Rattan Singh, Raju and Sumer Singh, armed with
      deadly weapons, were planning to commit dacoity in a
      liquor shop on Meerut Road, Kamal. On receiving
F     the information, Assistant Sub Inspector Sube Singh and
      other police officials proceeded towards electric pole,
      Ganda Nala, Sector 5, Kamal. It was 1.20 p.m. (noon) when
      the police party observed that all the accused were in
      blue shirts. The police team further went near the
G     miscreants and heard the conversation of the appellant and
      co-accused that they would commit dacoity in the night
      in the liquor shop on Meerut Road, Kamal. After hearing
      the conversation, the police officials surrounded and
H     apprehended four of the accused. They succeeded in
 JASBIR SINGH @ JAVRI @ JABBAR SINGH v. STATE 545
       OF HARYANA [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

arresting appellant Jasbir Singh @ Javri @ Jabbar Singh A
and recovered from his possession one country made
pistol (Ex. PD) with two live cartridges of .315 bore. The
police party further succeeded in apprehending co-
accused Shamsher Singh @ Chhammi, Jagpal and
Sumer Singh. On personal search of Shamsher Singh B
one knife (Ex. PF) was recovered, and one Saria (Iron Rod)
(Ex. PG) was recovered from Sumer Singh. From
accused Jagpal one country made pistol loaded with
cartridge (Ex. PE) was said to have been recovered. The
other two accused, namely, Rattan Singh and Raj Kumar C
@ Raju succeeded in running away from the spot.

     4. After the arrest of the four accused, as mentioned
above, Assistant Sub Inspector Sube Singh (PW-6)
prepared ~emo (Ex. PD/1) in respect of recovery of pistol,    D
'Tierno (Ex. PE/1) relating to recovery of cartridges, memo
(Ex. PF/1) relating to recovery of knife, and memo (Ex.
PG/1) relating to recovery of iron rod. Ruqa (memo) (Ex.
PH) was sent by the Assistant Sub Inspector Sube Singh
(PW-6) to Police Station, City, Kamal. On the basis of said   E
report FIR No. 355 dated 26.6.2003 was registered against
all the six accused relating to offences punishable under
Sections 399 and 402 IPC. As against accused (appellant)
Jasbir Singh @ Javri @ Jabbar Singh and co- accused           F
Jagpal, crime in respect of offences punishable under Arms
Act were also registered. PW-6, Sube Singh, himself
conducted the investigation and prepared the site plan (Ex.
PJ) and recorded statements of witnesses. On 29.6.2003,
co-accused Rattan Singh and Raju were also arrested.          G
On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed
against all the six accused under Section 173 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") in the
court of llaqa Magistrate, Kamal, who committed the case
to the Court of Sessions for trial of the accused.            H
546       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A      5. It appears that after giving necessary copies of
  documents, and hearing the parties, charge was framed by
  the trial court against all the accused in respect of
  offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 IPC, in
  reply to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
B tried. Additional charge in respect of offence punishable
  under Section 25 of Arms Act, was framed against
  accused Jasbir Singh and one against accused Jagpal to
  which also they pleaded not guilty.

C      6. On this, prosecution got examined PW-1 Satish
  Kumar, PW-2 Prem Kumar, PW-3 Balwant Singh, PW-4,
  Head Constable Ram Singh, PW-5 Narinder Singh (an
  official in the Office of the District Magistrate) and PW-6
  Assistant Sub Inspector Sube Singh. The oral and
D documentary evidence was put to the accused under
  Section 313 of the Code, in reply to which they stated that
  the same is false. In defence, DW-1 Sushi! Kumar Rana
  was got examined, who stated that the appellant and other
  three accused, as suggested by prosecution, were not
E arrested together. This witness has stated that Jagpal
  was arrested from Government Girls College, Kamal.

       7. The trial court, after hearing the parties, relied upon
  the testimony of PW- 6, Assistant Sub Inspector Sube Singh,
F which is supported by PW-1 Head Constable Satish
  Kumar and PW-4 Head Constable Ram Singh. It further
  found that the sanction of prosecution given by the
  District Magistrate as against appellant Jasbir Singh @
  Javri @ Jabbar Singh was proved on the record in
G respect of offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act.
  The trial court held all the six accused were guilty of
  charge of offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402
  IPC on 15.5.204. Appellant Jasbir Singh @ Javri @
H Jabbar Singh and Jagpal were further found guilty and
 JASBIR SINGH @ JAVRI @ JABBAR SINGH v. STATE 547
       OF HARYANA [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

convicted under Section 25 of Arms Act. After hearing on A
the sentence, on 17.5.204 the trial court (Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Trek Court, Kamal) sentenced each
of the convicts, namely, Jasbir Singh @ Javri @ Jabbar
Singh, Shamsher Singh @ Chhammi, Sumer Singh, Jagpal,
Rattan Singh and Raj Kumar @ Raju to rigorous B
imprisonment for a period of seven years under Section
399 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of five
years under Section 402 IPC. Appellant Jasbir Singh @
Javri @ Jabbar Singh and co-accused Jagpal were further
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six C
months under Section 25 of Arms Act.

     8. Aggrieved by the above judgment and order dated
15.5.2004/17.5.2004, passed by the trial court, the convicts,
including the appellant Jasbir Singh @ Javri @ Jabbar D
8ingh, filed appeals before the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana. The High Court, vide impugned judgment and
order dated 8.8.2014, affirmed the conviction of appellant
Jasbir Singh @ Javri @ Jabbar Singh and other co-
accused, but reduced the sentence under Section ·399 E
IPC to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years
without disturbing sentence on other counts. Hence, this
appeal by Jasbir Singh @ Javri @ Jabbar Singh before
us through special leave.
                                                              F
     9. On behalf of the appellant, it is argued that the High
Court has grossly erred in law in not accepting the appeal
of appellant Jasbir Singh as the prosecution story was
completely false and on the face of it unbelievable. Learned
counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court has G
failed to re-appreciate the evidence on record
independently. It is further pointed out that the complainant
Assistant Sub Inspector Sube Singh (PW-6) has himself
investigated the crime.
                                                               H
548         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A     10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
  respondent submitted that the appellant along with other
  accused was found planning to commit dacoity and was
  arrested along with fire arm at the spot, as such, the
  courts below have rightly found the appellant guilty of the
B charge framed against him.

      11. Having considered the submissions of the learned
  counsel for the parties and after going through the papers
  on record, we are of the view that none of the charge in
C the present case, against the appellant, can be said to
  have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In this
  connection, we would like to quote following observations
  of the High Court, made in the impugned, after re-
  appreciating the evidence: -
D
       "The statement of ASI Sube Singh and H.C. Ram
       Singh cannot be believed to the effect that they had
       over heard the conversation of the accused,
       details of which are given above to show that the
E      accused were discussing their plan in detail to
       commit dacoity on the liquor shop, situated at
       Meerut Road, Kamal. It is apparently exaggeration and
       padding on the part of Investigating Officer."

F      12. Strangely, even after observing as above, the High
  Court has believed the prosecution story in respect of
  offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 IPC, and
  one in respect of offence punishable under Section 25 of
  Arms Act. The High Court has erred in law in not taking note
G of the following facts apparent from the evidence on record:


      {i)   In a day light incident at 1.20 p.m. within the limits
            of City Police Station, Karna!, there is no public or
H           any other independent witness of the arrest of the
 JASBIR SINGH @ JAVRI @ JABBAR SINGH v. STATE 549
       OF HARYANA [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

      appellant along with other accused from the place of A
      incident nor that of the alleged recovery of fire arm
      said to have been made from two of them. (It is
      not a case where arrest or recovery has been made
      in the presence of any Gazetted Officer.)
                                                            B
 (ii) Complainant (PW-6) has himself investigated the
      crime, as such, the credibility of the investigation
      is also doubtful in the present case, particularly,
      for the reason that except the police constables,
      who are subordinate to him, there is no other witness C
      to the incident.

  (iii) It is not natural that the six accused, four of whom
        were armed with deadly weapons, neither offered any
        resistance nor caused any injury to any of the police D
        personnel before they are apprehended by the police.

  (iv) It is strange that all the accused were wearing blue
       shirts, as if there was a uniform provided to them.

  (v) It is hard to believe that the appellant and three others   E
      did not try to run away as at the time of the noon
      they must have easily noticed from a considerable
      distance that some policemen are coming towards
       them. (It is not the case of the prosecution that          F
       police personnel were not in uniform.)

    13.. In view of the above facts and circumstances, which
are apparent from the evidence on record, we find that
both the courts below have erred in law in holding that the
prosecution has successfully proved charge of offences G
punishable under Sections 399 and 402 IPC, and one
punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act against appellant
Jasbir Singh @ Javri @ Jabbar Singh, beyond reasonable
doubt. In our opinion, it is a fit case where the appellant is H
550          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A     entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt, and deserves
      to be acquitted.

      14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The Conviction
  and sentence recorded against appellant Jasbir Singh @
B Javri@ Jabbar Singh under Sections 399 and 402 IPC and
  one punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act, is hereby set
  aside. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not
  required in connection with any other trial.

      Kalpana k. Tripathy                           Appeal allowed.