AJAY KUMAR SINGH Vs FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING .
Bench: T.S. THAKUR,R. BANUMATHI
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000325-000325 / 2012
Diary number: 17639 / 2011
Advocates: K.PARAMESHWAR Vs
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2012
AJAY KUMAR SINGH ...Appellant Versus
THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF & ORS. ...Respondents
With CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos………..… OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8037-8038 of 2012)
DHIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH ...Appellant Versus
THE CHIEF OF THE NAVAL STAFF, INDIAN NAVY & ORS. …Respondents
And CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 471-472 OF 2013
UMESH KUMAR SINGH …Appellant Versus
THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF & ORS. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Delay condoned and leave granted in SLP (Crl.)
No.8037-8038 of 2012.
2. Appellant-Ajay Kumar Singh (AK Singh),
Ex-Seaman, First Class (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.325 of
2012) and Umesh Kumar Singh (UK Singh), Ex-Radio Operator
1
Page 2
(Special), First Class (appellant in Criminal Appeals No.471-472
of 2013) have assailed the judgments of Armed Forces Tribunal,
Chennai in T.A. No.139 of 2010 dated 11.11.2010 and T.A.
No.11 of 2011 dated 05.01.2012 and order dated 17.02.2012
passed in Review Petition No.2 of 2012 in and by which the
tribunal affirmed the conviction of the appellants under Sections
342 and 392 IPC read with Section 77(2) of the Navy Act, 1957
and modified the sentence of imprisonment to that of the period
already undergone by them. Appellant Dhirendra Kumar Singh
(DK Singh), Ex-Leading Seaman, Physical Trainer, Second Class
who was acquitted by the tribunal with pensionary benefits, has
preferred separate appeals seeking direction for reinstatement
and other monetary benefits. These criminal appeals though
assail separate judgments of Armed Forces Tribunal, Chennai,
as the appeals arise out of the same bank robbery incident, all
the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this
common judgment.
3. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as
follows: Mr. N.K. Marwaha, Branch Manager of Andhra Bank,
Extension Counter, situated at Utility Complex, INS Virbahu
filed a complaint on 04.06.1998 at Malkapuram Police Station
2
Page 3
alleging that at about 7.20 p.m. while settling the accounts for
the day along with Nallamuthu Dass, the cashier, noticed two
persons entered the bank stating that they wanted to open a
bank account and the third person entered after them. Of three
persons, two were armed with two countrymade pistols, a khukri
and an iron rod and they together threatened the manager and
cashier to open iron safe. Manager-Marwaha and cashier opened
the iron chest and the culprits removed Rs.2,54,376/- from the
cash tray of the iron safe and kept the same in the blue colour
rexin bag which they were carrying. They removed the money,
the three persons locked the manager and the cashier inside the
strong room of the bank before escaping in a metallic blue Bajaj
Chetak scooter alongwith the blue colour cash bag. During the
commission of the offence, the culprits were concealing their
identity by wearing helmets with visors and masks. After forcing
open strong room where they had been locked, the manager filed
a complaint on 04.06.1998 before Malkapuram Police Station
based on which first information report was registered in Crime
No.34 of 1998 under Sections 392 and 342 IPC read with
Section 25 (1-A) of the Arms Act. The Naval Police had taken
over the investigation; but they were unable to make headway
3
Page 4
into identity of the accused persons despite recovery of the
scooter and other articles on 23.07.1998. The investigation was
then handed over to the civil police. After further investigation,
civil police arrested appellants AK Singh and UK Singh on
30.07.1998. Appellant DK Singh was arrested at Howrah
Railway Station on 24.07.1998 and thereafter brought to
Visakhapatnam on 28.07.1998. On 30.07.1998 all three persons
were remanded to custody in central jail, Visakhapatnam. Based
on the statement of the accused persons, certain recoveries were
made. On 17.08.1998, identification parade was conducted and
PWs 14 and 18 identified the appellants.
4. The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam vide
letter dated 28.10.1998 advised the Flag Officer,
Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Naval Command,
Visakhapatnam to try the accused persons by Court Martial.
Therefore, the appellants were transferred to naval custody
under the provisions of Section 475 Cr.P.C. read with Criminal
Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules,
1978 and the matter was investigated afresh by the
Commanding Officer, INS Circars. After completion of
investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellants on
4
Page 5
26.06.1999 under Sections 392 and 342 IPC read with Section
77 (2) of the Naval Act and Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act read
with Section 77(2) of the Navy Act:-(i) for committing a robbery of
Rs.2,54,371/- at the Andhra Bank Extension Counter at INS
Virbahu; (ii) for wrongful confinement of the bank manager and
cashier; (iii) for possession of country made pistol and three
rounds of ammunition whilst committing the offence; and (iv)
that accused had remained absent without leave. The Court
Martial was convened on 16.07.1999 and the appellants were
tried before the Court Martial.
5. Before the Court Martial, twenty nine prosecution
witnesses were examined. Upon consideration of evidence, the
Court Martial found the appellants guilty of various charges and
sentenced them to undergo various imprisonments. Additionally,
all three appellants were imposed punishment of dismissal with
disgrace and to suffer such other consequential penalties
involved. The appellants preferred statutory appeals before the
Chief of the Naval Staff in accordance with Section 162 of Navy
Act 1957. The Chief of Naval Staff confirmed the conviction of
the appellants and reduced the imprisonment and maintained
dismissal of the appellants with disgrace from the naval service.
5
Page 6
6. The details of charges framed against the appellants,
findings of the court martial, punishment and findings of the
appellate authority/Chief of the Naval Staff are as under:-
Na me of the Appell ant
Charges Framed
Findings of the Court Martial and Punishment
Findings of the Appellate Authority/Chief of the Naval Staff
AK Singh
1. Under Section 392 IPC read with Section 77 (2) Navy Act.
2. Under Section 342 IPC read with Section 77 (2) Navy Act.
3. Under Section 25 (1-A) Arms Act read with Section 77 (2) Navy Act.
Found guilty of charges 1 and 2 under Sections 392 and 342 IPC read with Section 77(2) Navy Act and sentenced to undergo RI for sixty months; dismissal from service with disgrace and to suffer consequential penalties involved.
Maintained the conviction and reduced the sentence to twenty four months; Confirmed dismissal from service with disgrace.
UK Singh
1. Under Section 392 IPC read with Section 77 (2) Navy Act.
2. Under Section 342 IPC read with Section 77 (2) Navy Act.
3. Under Section 25 (1-A) Arms Act read with Section 77 (2) Navy Act.
4. Under Section 51 Navy Act.
Found guilty of charges 1, 2 and 4 under Sections 392, 342 IPC read with Sections 77(2) and 51 of Navy Act and sentenced to undergo RI for ninety six months; dismissal from service with disgrace and to forfeit fourteen days mullets of pay and allowance and suffer consequential penalties involved.
Maintained the conviction and reduced the sentence from ninety six months to seventy two months; confirmed dismissal from service with disgrace; forfeiture mullets of pay and allowances for fourteen days and to suffer the consequential penalties.
DK Singh
1. Under Section 392 IPC read with Section 77 (2) of Navy Act.
2. Under Section 342 IPC read with Section 77 (2) of Navy Act.
3. Under Section 60(a) Navy
Found guilty of charges 1, 2,3 and 5 under Sections 392, 342 IPC read with Sections 77 (2), 60 (a) and 49 (2)(b) of the Navy Act. Sentenced to undergo RI for 120 months dismissal
Maintained finding of Court Martial except on charge No.5 under Section 49(2)(b) who is found guilty of alternate charge under Section 51 of the Navy Act
6
Page 7
Act. 4. Under
Section 25 (1-A) Arms Act read with Section 77 (2) Navy Act.
5. Under Section 49 (2) (b) of Navy Act. Alternatively, under Section 51 Navy Act.
from service with disgrace and consequential penalties involved.
Charge No. 4 – Not guilty.
and reduced sentence from 120 months to 96 months. Reduced the rank to Sea I.
7. Challenging the conviction and the punishment of
dismissal with disgrace, the appellants have filed writ petitions
before the Andhra Pradesh High Court which upon constitution
of the Armed Forces Tribunal were transferred to Armed Forces
Tribunal, Chennai and the tribunal disposed of the appeals
confirming the conviction of the appellants AK Singh and
UK Singh. The tribunal disbelieved the versions of PW-14
(Manager) and PW-18 (Cashier) and held that PWs 14 and 18
could not have seen the faces of the culprits at the time of
committing the crime since even according to the prosecution
the accused covered their faces with masks and helmets and
were conversing only by lifting the visors of the helmets. PW-15
fingerprint expert opined “that fingerprints marked as ‘A’ and ‘B’
tallied with the specimen fingerprints of appellants AK Singh and
UK Singh” (Exs.P46 and P47). Based on the evidence of PW-15
V. Hanumantha Rao, Fingerprint Expert, the tribunal confirmed
7
Page 8
the conviction of the appellants-AK Singh and UK Singh and
reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the
appellants AK Singh and UK Singh to the period already
undergone by them and maintained their dismissal.
8. In so far as DK Singh is concerned, the tribunal held
that there is no satisfactory evidence to establish his guilt and
acquitted him giving him benefit of doubt. The tribunal directed
that DK Singh’s period of arrest till the date of sentence by the
Court Martial shall be counted for the qualifying service to
enable DK Singh to get his pension. The tribunal however held
that DK Singh shall not be entitled to any monetary benefit like
backwages etc. for the interregnum period except that the same
is counted for qualifying service for getting pension. Being
aggrieved by declining the relief of reinstatement and other
monetary benefits, DK Singh has preferred Criminal Appeals
arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8037-8038 of 2012.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants and appellant
DK Singh who appeared in person reiterated the pleas urged
before the court martial and the tribunal and submitted that
great injustice has been done to the appellants in not following
the procedure established by law inasmuch as there was
8
Page 9
non-compliance of the provisions of Section 5 of the
Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 in taking the fingerprints of
the appellants. It was submitted that the photographs of the
appellants were taken and were shown to the PW-14 (manager)
and PW-18 (cashier) to enable them to identify the
appellants-accused without which, it would not have been
possible for PW-14 and PW-18 to identify them since even
according to the prosecution version when they entered the bank
in order to conceal their identity, they were wearing helmets and
visors. It was submitted that the Court Martial and the Tribunal
committed serious error in appreciating the evidence and
material on record.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the case of the appellants have been extensively
dealt with by the tribunal and all the questions of law and fact
have been considered at length and the tribunal has passed a
reasoned order wherein all the issues raised by the parties have
been considered and the impugned order warrants no
interference. In so far as appellant–DK Singh it was submitted
that acquittal in the criminal case does not entitle him for
9
Page 10
reinstatement as he was not honourably acquitted but was given
benefit of doubt and cannot claim reinstatement as of right.
11. We have carefully considered the rival contentions
and perused the impugned judgments and material on record.
12. PW-14 (Manager) and PW-18 (Cashier) have clearly
spoken about the occurrence that on the date of incident on
04.06.1998, three persons entered into the bank and threatened
PW-14 and PW-18 by showing gun and committed robbery in the
bank. Before the Court Martial, PW-14 and PW-18 have
identified the three appellants as the culprits who committed
robbery in the bank. PW-14 and PW-18 have also spoken about
the identification parade held in the prison and that they have
identified the appellants in the test identification parade.
13. The tribunal disbelieved the evidence of PW-14 and
PW-18 and their identification of the appellants on the ground
that they could not have seen the faces of the culprits at the
time of commission of offence, since even according to the
prosecution, the appellants were covering their faces with masks
and helmets with visors and they lifted the visors only while
conversing with the bank personnel and tribunal held that there
was no possibility of PW-14 (Manager) and PW-18 (Cashier)
10
Page 11
seeing the faces of the accused. The tribunal further relied upon
the representation made by the appellants to the Metropolitan
Magistrate that they had been photographed by the police to
enable the eye-witnesses (PWs 14 and 18) to identify them in the
test identification parade and on those findings, the tribunal
disbelieved the evidence of PW-14 and PW-18 insofar as the
identification of the appellants.
14. The tribunal, in our view, was not right in
disbelieving the evidence of PW-14 (Manager) and PW-18
(Cashier) as to the identification of the appellants as the culprits
who committed robbery in the bank. The occurrence was at 7.20
p.m. on 04.06.1998. At the time of occurrence, the bank
personnel including PW-14 and PW-18 were working and
settling the accounts and were about to close the bank. Since
the bank personnel were still at work in the bank, it is
reasonable to assume that there was enough light to do so inside
the bank. The appellants who entered the bank initially asked
PW-14 to open the bank account. Before however PW-14 could
refuse, the appellants took out a revolver and other weapons.
From the evidence of PW-14 and PW-18, it is clear that the
incident lasted for a brief period during which the appellants
11
Page 12
were talking to each other. As per the evidence of PW-14 and
PW-18, while the culprits were so conversing lifting their visors,
they were able to see the culprits. It is obvious that the
extraordinary situation, in which the incidence occurred must
have left an indelible impression in the mind of the witnesses
about the identity of the culprits. Be it noted that immediately
after the incident, PW-14 (Manager) lodged the complaint before
Malkapuram Police Station wherein he gave the descriptive
particulars of the three culprits namely their age, height, colour
complexion etc. and also given the details of the weapons. As
noted earlier, identity of the appellants by PW-14 and PW-18 in
the court is also corroborated by identification of the appellants
by PW-14 and PW-18 in the test identification parade. In that
view, the tribunal was not right in disbelieving the evidence of
PW-14 (Manager) and PW-18 (Cashier). It is also pertinent to
note that PW-14 and PW-18 had no reason to falsely implicate
the appellants which aspect was not kept in view by the
tribunal. To that extent, we differ from the findings of the
tribunal and accepting the evidence of PW-14 and PW-18 and
maintain the conviction of appellants-AK Singh and UK Singh.
12
Page 13
15. Yet another piece of evidence relied upon by the
prosecution is the recovery of weapons from AK Singh. As per
the prosecution, appellant-AK Singh was arrested on 30.07.1998
and based on his confession, the weapons used in the
commission of offence were recovered under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act. Photographs of the weapons/material objects
recovered were produced before the court martial and the
tribunal has noted that the photograph of the weapon was taken
on 29.07.1998 itself, as seen from the requisition for taking
photo of the weapons. The tribunal therefore disbelieved the
prosecution case in so far as the recovery of the weapon used at
the time of committing the offence. Since we did not have the
benefit of perusing the photographs, so produced, we are not
expressing any view about the findings of the tribunal on this
aspect.
16. To sustain the conviction of AK Singh and UK Singh,
court martial as well as the tribunal relied upon the evidence of
Fingerprint Expert-V. Hanumantha Rao (PW-15) who had stated
that upon information to the control room on 04.06.1998, he
reached the scene of occurrence at Naval Base, Andhra Bank
Extension Counter, INS Virbahu at 9.00 p.m. While examining
13
Page 14
the scene of occurrence, PW-15 observed two chance
fingerprints on the glass entrance door of the bank. PW-15
developed the same with his universal or white powder and
marked them as “A” and “B” for the purpose of lifting them by
taking photos. As the photographer was not available, PW-15
left the scene of occurrence and on the next day morning i.e.
05.06.1998 at about 0800 hrs., PW-15 took the police constable
Trimul Kumar-photographer of MFSL Unit, Visakhapatnam and
photographed the preserved chance fingerprints. The chance
fingerprints so lifted were kept in the office of PW-15 for
comparison. The police supplied the specimen fingerprints of
bank officials for comparison and as per the evidence of PW-15,
fingerprints of the bank employees did not tally with the chance
fingerprints lifted from the entrance door of the bank. Two
months later after the arrest of the appellants, specimen
fingerprints of AK Singh, UK Singh and also DK Singh were sent
to PW-15 for comparison. On comparison, PW-15 noted that the
chance fingerprint marked “A” was identical to the specimen
right middle finger impression marked as “S1” which is the
specimen fingerprint of appellant-AK Singh and the said report
was marked as Ex.P-46. In Ex.P-47-report, PW-15 opined that
14
Page 15
chance fingerprint marked “B” was identical to the specimen
right index finger impression as “S(a)” which is the specimen
finger impression of appellant-UK Singh.
17. Contention of respondents is that evidence of
PW-15-Fingerprint Expert incriminates the appellants AK Singh
and UK Singh. However, in proving this incriminating evidence,
there seems to be lapses on the part of the prosecution. As
noticed earlier, police constable Tirumal Kumar-photographer of
MFSL Unit had taken the photographs of the preserved chance
fingerprints. To prove the chance fingerprints lifted from the
entrance glass doors of the bank, the prosecution should have
proved the photographs by examining constable-Trimul Kumar
and should have produced the negatives of the photographs of
the chance fingerprints. This lapse in the prosecution, in our
view, cannot result in acquittal of the appellants. The evidence
adduced by the prosecution must be scrutinized independently
of such lapses either in the investigation or by the prosecution
or otherwise, the result of the criminal trial would depend upon
the level of investigation or the conduct of the prosecution.
Criminal trials should not be made casualty for such lapses in
the investigation or prosecution. Evidence of PW-14 (Manager)
15
Page 16
and PW-18 (Cashier) identifying the appellants and their
evidence as to identity of the appellants in the test identification
parade ought not to have been disbelieved by the tribunal. In
exercise of power under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal
Act, this Court normally does not re-appreciate the evidence and
slow to interfere with the findings of the tribunal unless there is
substantial question of public importance. But when it is found
that appreciation of evidence in a given case is vitiated by
serious error, this Court can re-appreciate the evidence and
interfere with the findings. In our view, the tribunal was not
right in disbelieving the evidence of PW-14 (Manager) and PW-18
(Cashier) in identifying the appellants AK Singh, UK Singh and
DK Singh as culprits and their identity in test identification
parade and their conviction is to be affirmed on the evidence of
PW-14 and PW-18, if not on the evidence of fingerprint expert
and the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
18. In so far as appellant-UK Singh, prosecution has
adduced evidence to show that after the incident, he has
deposited huge amount in his bank account. PW-29-Gopal
Priyadarshi, Assistant, Central Bank of India stated that
appellant-UK Singh is having account No.8206 in Central Bank
16
Page 17
of India, Azamgarh Branch, Uttar Pradesh and that he had
deposited Rs.81,600/- on 11.06.1998. Ex. P76 is the certificate
issued by the Central Bank, Azamgarh dated 07.10.1998 as per
which the last balance in the account of UK Singh is
Rs.1,32,670/- including an interest of Rs.570/-. PW-29 deposed
that as per Ex.C-11, pay in slip, the denomination of the cash of
Rs.81,600/- deposited by the accused was, one bundle of
Rs.500/-(Rs.500x100=50,000/-), 316 notes of Rs.100/-
(Rs.100x316= 31,600/-) total Rs.81,600/-. Appellant-UK Singh
has not explained the source of such huge amount deposited in
the bank on 11.06.1998 which is a strong incriminating
circumstance against the appellant.
19. Facts leading to DK Singh’s arrest are slightly
different from those of AK Singh and UK Singh. DK Singh was
serving on Board alongwith other sailors in INS Anjadip,
Visakhapatnam on 04.06.1998. He collected his Genform
No.358/S dated 03.07.1998 from ship INS Anjadip at
Visakhapatnam and proceeded to his next duty station for
POPTI ‘Q’ course at INS, Venduruthy, Cochin. DK Singh
alongwith his wife, children and brother-in-law proceeded
towards his native place by Corromandal express. On the basis
17
Page 18
of information, DK Singh was arrested at Howrah Railway
Station on 24.07.1998, was kept under custody till 28.07.1998
at Calcutta and thereafter he was brought to Visakhapatnam on
28.07.1998. In Court Martial inquiry, DK Singh was found
guilty and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous
imprisonment and dismissal with disgrace from navy with
consequential penalties. Upon appeal, his conviction was
confirmed and sentence was reduced to eight years. The tribunal
acquitted appellant-DK Singh by giving him benefit of doubt.
While acquitting DK Singh, tribunal directed that the
appellant-DK Singh is deemed to have been retired from service
with effect from 03.05.2004 on completion of qualifying service
required for pension. Assailing the same, appellant-DK Singh
has filed the appeal seeking for reinstatement and other
consequential benefits.
20. As in the case of other appellants, tribunal
disbelieved the identification of DK Singh by PWs 14 and 18.
The tribunal accepted DK Singh’s plea that his photograph was
taken on the same date when he was placed under custody i.e.
on 29.07.1998 and identification parade was conducted on
17.08.1998. The tribunal was of the opinion that there was
18
Page 19
probability for the investigating agency to have shown his photo
to PWs 14 and 18. As discussed earlier, we have differed from
the approach and finding of the tribunal in appreciation of
evidence of PW-14 and PW-18 in identifying the appellants.
However, since Union of India has not filed any appeal
challenging acquittal of appellant DK Singh, we do not propose
to go into these aspects.
21. It is fairly well settled that acquittal by a criminal
court would not debar an employer from exercising power in
accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force. [vide Ajit
Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Haldia and Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 764, T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. and Ors.
v. K. Meerabai (2006) 2 SCC 255]
22. Acquittal in a criminal case does not entitle a person
to automatic reinstatement. In Union of India and Anr. v. Bihari
Lal Sidhana (1997) 4 SCC 385, it was held as under:-
“5. It is true that the respondent was acquitted by the criminal court but acquittal does not automatically give him the right to be reinstated into the service. It would still be open to the competent authority to take decision whether the delinquent government servant can be taken into service or disciplinary action should be taken under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or under the Temporary Service Rules. Admittedly, the respondent had been working as a temporary government servant before he was kept under suspension. The termination order indicated the factum that he, by then, was under suspension. It is
19
Page 20
only a way of describing him as being under suspension when the order came to be passed but that does not constitute any stigma. Mere acquittal of government employee does not automatically entitle the government servant to reinstatement. As stated earlier, it would be open to the appropriate competent authority to take a decision whether the enquiry into the conduct is required to be done before directing reinstatement or appropriate action should be taken as per law, if otherwise, available. Since the respondent is only a temporary government servant, the power being available under Rule 5(1) of the Rules, it is always open to the competent authority to invoke the said power and terminate the services of the employee instead of conducting the enquiry or to continue in service a government servant accused of defalcation of public money. Reinstatement would be a charter for him to indulge with impunity in misappropriation of public money.”
23. Only if the employee had been honourably acquitted,
could he make a claim for reinstatement. In the case in hand,
the tribunal acquitted the appellant-DK Singh:-(i) as in the case
of AK Singh and UK Singh, tribunal disbelieved the identification
of appellant-DK Singh by PW-14 (Manager) and PW-18 (Cashier)
and (ii) the weapons that were alleged to have been recovered on
the basis of confession of DK Singh on 12.08.1998 appears to
have been photographed on 29.07.1998 by the prosecution, the
tribunal thus rejected the prosecution case that weapons, bag
and suitcase were recovered on the basis of confession given by
DK Singh. Unlike AK Singh and UK Singh’s case, DK Singh did
not have incriminating fingerprint evidence at the scene of
occurrence and DK Singh raised defence plea of alibi. According
20
Page 21
to DK Singh he was on duty along with four others on aboard
Indian Naval Ship, Anjadip on 04.06.1998 from 0900 hours to
1300 hours and then again from 1525 hours to 0740 hours on
05.06.1998. To examine this plea of alibi, the tribunal called for
the Duty Ashore Book maintained at INS Anjadip (Original of Ex.
P.32). DK Singh claimed that the document entry at Sl. No.53
was tampered with and consequently, tribunal noted that there
indeed was some overwriting in Sl. No.53 besides the column for
the name of the individual. The tribunal concluded that
prosecution had not placed any material on record to show that
after finishing his duty at 1300 hours, appellant-DK Singh was
allowed to avail off and thus the tribunal concluded that in the
absence of evidence that DK Singh was allowed to go off after
1300 hours on 04.06.1998, the benefit of doubt must be
afforded to him.
24. The tribunal came to the collective conclusion that
no satisfactory evidence had been adduced by the prosecution to
sustain the conviction of DK Singh and therefore the tribunal set
aside the conviction giving him the benefit of doubt. From a
perusal of the impugned judgment, it is clear that the tribunal
has acquitted the appellant-DK Singh on the ground that the
21
Page 22
prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. It is not as if, the appellant-DK Singh was
honourably acquitted. It is also to be pointed out that as
discussed above, that we have taken the view that the identity of
the appellants by PW-14 (Manager) and PW-18 (Cashier) is
credible and acceptable. Evidence of PW-14 and PW-18
identifying DK Singh as one of the culprits is a factor to be
reckoned with while considering the plea of the appellant-DK
Singh for reinstatement. Additionally, it is to be pointed out that
as seen from the evidence of K. Rama Krishna Rao-Inspector of
Police (PW-17) on 10.06.1998, DK Singh deposited Rs.90,000/-
in his bank account No.3395 of SBI BR Township Branch and
the explanation of the appellant for this deposit is not
convincing. Having regard to our findings on the evidence of
PWs 14 and 18, the acquittal of appellant-DK Singh itself
becomes a debatable point. However, we do not propose to go
into this aspect since the Union of India has not filed any appeal
challenging acquittal of DK Singh. Appellant–DK Singh who was
only granted benefit of doubt cannot seek for reinstatement and
the consequential benefits and his appeal is also liable to be
dismissed.
22
Page 23
25. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed.
……………………..CJI. (T.S . THAKUR)
………………………..J.
(R. BANUMATHI) New Delhi; July 13, 2016
23