Singh & Anr Vs. State of Haryana 
INSC 1183 (23 September
M.K. (J) Mukherjee M.K. (J) Faizan Uddin (J) M.K.Mukherjee, J.
two appeals have been heard together as they stem from one and the same
incident. Facts leading to these appeals and relevant for their disposal are as
On April 12,1987 at on about 12 noon Krishan Lal, driver of car No. RRK-4450, which belongs to
one Ved Prakash, lodged an information with Inspector Hazair Singh, Station House
Officer of Hissar Police Station, whom he met at Balsamand bus stand, that in
that morning at or about 6.30 A.M. when he was standing in the taxi stand of Ganga
Nagar one clean shaven young man sporting a beard and wearing trousers and bush
shirt hired his car for going to Hissar. The fare was settled at Rs.1.20 per kilometre
and he took Rs. 400/- from him as advance. A few minutes later a Sikh
gentleman, aged about 25 years, came there and both of them then got into the
car. At or about 11
A.M. when the car was
on its way to Hissar and was about to reach Balsamand the clean shaven man
placed a revolver on his neck and asked him to stop the car. That man then
fired a shot in the air and his companion demanded the return of the sum of
Rs.400/- paid to him earlier against the fare. After he acceeded to their damand
they pushed him out of the car and drove away.
Inspector Hazair Singh recorded the above complaint of Krishan Lal and
forwarded it to Hissar police station for registration of the case and sent
wireless message to all the police station in the District to apprehend the car
and the culprits.
that evening, when Om Prakash, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Hissar
Police Station, alongwith Head Constable Ramphal and other police personnel was
holding a Nakabandi on the Hissar-Hansi Bye-Pass by placing drums on the road,
they found, at or about 8 p.m. the above car coming from the side of Hissar.
They signalled the car to stop and when it came to a halt the two occupants of
the car started running away. Ultimately they succeeded in apprehending both of
them, who disclosed their names as Mohinder Singh and Harjinder Singh. After
their apprehension the car was searched and the documents relating to the car
the driving licence of Harjinder singh and one steel chain containing the keys
of the car were recovered. On search of their persons a country made revolver
with a cartridge loaded therein and four currency notes of Rs.100/- each were
recovered form Harjinder Singh and Mohinder Singh respectively. All the
articles recovered together with the car were seized and taken possession of by
S.I. Om Prakash under different recovery memos prepared there.
completion of investigation the Investigating officer Submitted two chargesheets;
one against both Mohinder Singh and Harjinder Singh Under section 392 read with
397 I.P.C., and section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6 of
Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 ('TADA' for short)
and another against Harjinder Singh alone under section 25 of the Arms Act,
1959 read with Section 6 of TADA for unlawful possession of the country made
Court, Hissar tried
the two cases arising out of the above chargesheets one after the other and
delivered two separate judgments whereby it convicted and sentenced the
appellants for all the above offences.
Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence for robbery Mohinder Singh and Harjinder
Singh have filed one of these appeals (Criminal Appeal No.72 of 1989) and Harjinder
Singh has filed the other appeal (Criminal Appeal No.1647 of 1996) for his
conviction and sentence under section 25 of the Arms act, 1959 read with
Section 6 of TADA.
prove the case of robbery against the two appellants the prosecution relied
principally upon the evidence of Krishna Lal (P.W.5), H.C. Ramphal (P.W. 6) and
S.I. Om Prakash (P.W.7), Krishan Lal detailed the prosecution case regarding
the snatching of Rs. 400/- and the car from him after putting him in instant
fear of death by two miscreants and he identified the appellants as those
miscreants. We have carefully gone through his evidence and we find no reason
whatsoever to disbelieve him more so when nothing could be elicited in his
cross examination to discredit him.
of the appellants it was suggested to him that he was a procured witness and
that the entire case was falsely engineered but the suggestion was denied.
Indeed, we have searched in vain for materials in support of the above defence
contention but found none. On the contrary we find that his evidence stands
amply corroborated by the fact the immediately after he was relieved the entire
incident. His identification of the appellants as the two mistake was with them
from 6.30 A.M. till 11.00 A.M. and, therefore, he had sufficient time to mark their
features. While on this point we may also mention that the appellants refused
to be placed in the test identification parade, which was prayed for by the
Investigating Officer. The other corroborration of his evidence, as regards the
factum of robbery as also the identification of the two appellants as the
miscreants, is furnished by the evidence of P.Ws. 6 & 7 who seized the care
within 9 hours of the incident with two appellants as the occupants thereof,
recovered the sum of Rs. 400/- from Mohinder Singh and the revolver from Harjinder
Singh, Who according to P.W.5 was the clean shaven man who had placed the
revolver on his neck and had fired shot in the air. We do not find any
infirmity in the evidence of the above two witnesses, more so when their
evidence is supported by the contemporaneous documents prepared in respect of
the seizures. For the foregoing discussion we do not find any merit in Criminal
Appeal No. 72 of 1989.
other appeal filed by Harjinder Singh against his conviction under section 25
of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6 of TADA for unlawful possession of
the revolver has got to be allowed for the simple reason that the prosecution
did not prove that section as required under section 87 was accorded for
prosecuting him for the above offence.
the conclusions as above we dismiss Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1989 and uphold
the conviction and sentence recorded against the two appellants by the Designated Court in Sessions Case No.5-TC 1987. We,
however, allow Criminal Appeal No. 1647 of 1996 and set aside the conviction
and sentence recorded against the appellant Harjinder Singh Under Section 25 of
the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6 of the TADA in Sessions Case No. 3-TC of
1987. The appellants, who are on bail, will now surrender to the bail bonds to
serve out the sentences imposed upon them in Sessions Case No. 5-TC 1987.