Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 554 OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8663 of 2014)

Jasbir Singh @ Javri @ Jabbar Singh … Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

This  appeal  is  directed  against  judgment  and  order  

dated  8.8.2014,  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  

Haryana, whereby Criminal 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, Karnal, has been affirmed in respect  

of offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the

Page 2

Page 2 of 12

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.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the  

papers on record.

3. Prosecution story  in  brief  is  that  on 26.6.2003,  PW-6  

Sube Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, Karnal, along with 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  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,  Karnal.   On  receiving  the  information,  

Assistant Sub Inspector Sube Singh and other police officials

Page 3

Page 3 of 12

proceeded  towards  electric  pole,  Ganda  Nala,  Sector  5,  

Karnal.   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  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,  Karnal.   After  hearing the conversation,  the  

police  officials  surrounded  and  apprehended  four  of  the  

accused.  They succeeded in arresting appellant Jasbir Singh  

@ Javri @ Jabbar Singh 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 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 @  

Raju succeeded in running away from the spot.

Page 4

Page 4 of 12

4. After  the  arrest  of  the  four  accused,  as  mentioned  

above, Assistant Sub Inspector Sube Singh (PW-6) prepared  

memo (Ex. PD/1) in respect of recovery of pistol, memo (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, Karnal.  On the basis of said 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 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.  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

Page 5

Page 5 of 12

the  court  of  Ilaqa  Magistrate,  Karnal,  who  committed  the  

case to the Court of Sessions for trial of the accused.

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 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.

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 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 Sushil Kumar Rana was got examined, who stated that  

the  appellant  and  other  three  accused,  as  suggested  by

Page 6

Page 6 of 12

prosecution, were not arrested together.  This witness has  

stated  that  Jagpal  was  arrested  from  Government  Girls  

College, Karnal.

7. The trial court, after hearing the parties, relied upon the  

testimony  of  PW-6,  Assistant  Sub  Inspector  Sube  Singh,  

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 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 @ Jabbar Singh and Jagpal were further found  

guilty and convicted under Section 25 of Arms Act.   After  

hearing  on  the  sentence,  on  17.5.204  the  trial  court  

(Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Fast  Trek  Court,  Karnal)  

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

Page 7

Page 7 of 12

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 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 Singh,  

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 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.

Page 8

Page 8 of 12

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  

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.

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  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 the

Page 9

Page 9 of 12

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: -

“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  accused  were  discussing  their  plan  in  detail  to  commit  dacoity  on  the  liquor  shop,  situated  at  Meerut Road, Karnal.  It is apparently exaggeration  and padding on the part of Investigating Officer.”

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  

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,  Karnal,  there  is  no  public  or  any

Page 10

Page 10 of 12

other independent witness of the arrest of the appellant  

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  

any Gazetted Officer.)

(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 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  

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.

Page 11

Page 11 of 12

(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 policemen are coming towards them.  (It is  

not the case of the prosecution that 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  

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  

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 @ Javri @

Page 12

Page 12 of 12

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.   

………………….....…………J.                          [Dipak Misra]

     .………………….……………J.              [Prafulla C. Pant]

New Delhi; April 06, 2015