Ram Kumar Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 1998
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.1997 of the Designated Court of Najafgarh (in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1997)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.1997 of the Designated Court of Najafgarh (in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1997)
Petitioner: Ram Kumar
Respondent: State (NCT) of Delhi
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 1998
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.1997 of the Designated Court of Najafgarh (in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1997)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.1997 of the Designated Court of Najafgarh (in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1997)
Judges: G.T. NANAVATI & N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 28, 1999
Appearances:
Mr. T.N. Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. V.C. Mahajan, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Mr. A.K. Sharma, Mr. Anil Katiyar, Advocates with him for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Evidence Act, 1872
Section 3- Police witnesses – Reliability – Police party seeing one person with country made pistol in hand, chasing other and firing shot – Police Head – Constables chasing and apprehending the assailant – Two more cartridges recovered – Incident happen-ing out-side the village – No possibility of joining independent witness as none available – Absence of independent witness – Effects. Held that evidence of police witnesses cannot be dis-carded.
Evidence Act, 1872
Section 3- Police witnesses – Reliability – Police party seeing one person with country made pistol in hand, chasing other and firing shot – Police Head – Constables chasing and apprehending the assailant – Two more cartridges recovered – Incident happen-ing out-side the village – No possibility of joining independent witness as none available – Absence of independent witness – Effects. Held that evidence of police witnesses cannot be dis-carded.
Held:
They had come across the accused and the injured by chance and as the incident had taken place outside the village, it was not possible to associate any independent person to witness the search and seizure. On the ground that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution, the evidence of the police officers cannot be discarded when it is found to be reliable. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
NANAVATI, J.
1. The appellant has been convicted by the Court of Additional Judge, Designated Court II, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 78 of 1997, for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, Section 5 of the TADA Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. For the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. For the offence punishable under Section 5 of the TADA Act, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs 1000/- and in respect of his con-viction under Section 27 Arms Act, he has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs 1,000/- He has, therefore, filed this appeal challenging his conviction and also the sentence imposed upon him. As the appellant has not engaged any Advocate, Shri. T.N. Singh, learned counsel has been appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant, relying upon the evidence of the eye-witnesses submitted that neither the injured has supported the prosecution case nor any other independent witness has proved that the appellant had fired the shot which injured Ram Karan, and that he had ‘Desi Katta’ with him when he was apprehended by the police. The evidence of P.W. 2 – Jamna Das, discloses that he along with other police officers was on patrolling duty during the night between 10.4.91 and 11.4.91 and while at about 7.30 a.m. they were standing at a place near village Ditchaon they had seen two persons running. One was chasing the other. The person chasing was having a country made pistol in his hand. He fired a shot from his pistol and it had hit the person who was running ahead. Head Constable Chandrabhan and Joginder Singh, chased the person who had fired a shot, overtook him and apprehended him. From his pocket two more car-tridges were also recovered. As the person who was chasing, was first knocked down by their vehicle, he had also received some injuries. Therefore, along with the other injured he was also taken to the hospital. He further explained that they had come across the accused and the injured by chance and as the incident had taken place outside the village, it was not possible to associate any independent person to witness the search and sei-zure. We do not find any material on record on the basis of which it can be said that independent witness was available near the place of incident. Therefore, on the ground that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution, the evidence of the police officers cannot be discarded when it is found to be reli-able. Head Constables Jamna Das and Chandra Bhan have fully sup-ported the prosecution case and even ASI Om Prakash who was required to be cross examined has stated that he had seen two persons running and at that time had heard a shot having been fire. He also stated that he had seen the accused running away thereafter with ‘Desi Katta’ in his hand. The accused was imme-diately taken to the hospital along with the injured and that stands proved by the other prosecution evidence.
3. We have no reason to doubt the evidence of Head Constable Jamna Dass and Head Constable Chandra Bhan. It is true that injured Ram Karan has not supported the prosecution case but that is explained by the fact that the accused happened to be his uncle’s son. The prosecution has thus satisfactorily established that the appellant Ram Kumar had a Desi Katta with him , he fired a shot and injured Ram Karan. The circumstances under which the injury was caused clearly indicates the intention of the appell-ant and, therefore, we are of the view that the High Court has rightly convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. As the pistol was found in possession of Ram Kumar for which he did not possess any license, his conviction under Sec-tion 5 of the TADA Act also deserves to be confirmed. So also his conviction under the Arms Act.
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence punish-able under Section 307 IPC is rather harsh and it deserves to be reduced. Considering the near relationship of the injured and the appellant and other facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, is reduced to 7 years’ rigorous imprison-ment.
5. We, therefore, partly allow this appeal. We maintain the appellant’s conviction for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of TADA Act. The sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence under the Arms Act and TADA Act is also confirmed. However, the sentence imposed upon him for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is reduced from 10 years rigorous imprisonment to 7 years rigor-ous imprisonment. The sentence of fine is maintained.
1. The appellant has been convicted by the Court of Additional Judge, Designated Court II, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 78 of 1997, for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, Section 5 of the TADA Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. For the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. For the offence punishable under Section 5 of the TADA Act, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs 1000/- and in respect of his con-viction under Section 27 Arms Act, he has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs 1,000/- He has, therefore, filed this appeal challenging his conviction and also the sentence imposed upon him. As the appellant has not engaged any Advocate, Shri. T.N. Singh, learned counsel has been appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant, relying upon the evidence of the eye-witnesses submitted that neither the injured has supported the prosecution case nor any other independent witness has proved that the appellant had fired the shot which injured Ram Karan, and that he had ‘Desi Katta’ with him when he was apprehended by the police. The evidence of P.W. 2 – Jamna Das, discloses that he along with other police officers was on patrolling duty during the night between 10.4.91 and 11.4.91 and while at about 7.30 a.m. they were standing at a place near village Ditchaon they had seen two persons running. One was chasing the other. The person chasing was having a country made pistol in his hand. He fired a shot from his pistol and it had hit the person who was running ahead. Head Constable Chandrabhan and Joginder Singh, chased the person who had fired a shot, overtook him and apprehended him. From his pocket two more car-tridges were also recovered. As the person who was chasing, was first knocked down by their vehicle, he had also received some injuries. Therefore, along with the other injured he was also taken to the hospital. He further explained that they had come across the accused and the injured by chance and as the incident had taken place outside the village, it was not possible to associate any independent person to witness the search and sei-zure. We do not find any material on record on the basis of which it can be said that independent witness was available near the place of incident. Therefore, on the ground that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution, the evidence of the police officers cannot be discarded when it is found to be reli-able. Head Constables Jamna Das and Chandra Bhan have fully sup-ported the prosecution case and even ASI Om Prakash who was required to be cross examined has stated that he had seen two persons running and at that time had heard a shot having been fire. He also stated that he had seen the accused running away thereafter with ‘Desi Katta’ in his hand. The accused was imme-diately taken to the hospital along with the injured and that stands proved by the other prosecution evidence.
3. We have no reason to doubt the evidence of Head Constable Jamna Dass and Head Constable Chandra Bhan. It is true that injured Ram Karan has not supported the prosecution case but that is explained by the fact that the accused happened to be his uncle’s son. The prosecution has thus satisfactorily established that the appellant Ram Kumar had a Desi Katta with him , he fired a shot and injured Ram Karan. The circumstances under which the injury was caused clearly indicates the intention of the appell-ant and, therefore, we are of the view that the High Court has rightly convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. As the pistol was found in possession of Ram Kumar for which he did not possess any license, his conviction under Sec-tion 5 of the TADA Act also deserves to be confirmed. So also his conviction under the Arms Act.
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence punish-able under Section 307 IPC is rather harsh and it deserves to be reduced. Considering the near relationship of the injured and the appellant and other facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, is reduced to 7 years’ rigorous imprison-ment.
5. We, therefore, partly allow this appeal. We maintain the appellant’s conviction for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of TADA Act. The sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence under the Arms Act and TADA Act is also confirmed. However, the sentence imposed upon him for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is reduced from 10 years rigorous imprisonment to 7 years rigor-ous imprisonment. The sentence of fine is maintained.
