CRL. A. NO. 1667  OF 2007 1

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1667 OF 2007

 STATE OF PUNJAB   ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

HANS RAJ   ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the  

High  Court  for  the  States  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at  

Chandigarh dated 5th April, 2007 whereby the respondent's  

conviction by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana has been set  

aside and he has been acquitted for offences punishable  

under Sections 302, 392 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code  

and Section 25 of the Arms Act.   

2.1 As per the prosecution story on 22nd January, 1996 at  

about 30 minutes past mid night, Paramjit Singh, Conductor

CRL. A. NO. 1667  OF 2007 2

No. 45 was on night duty at the Bus Stand Muktsar.  He  

called  Shri  Jagdip  Singh,  General  Mananger,  Punjab  

Roadways, Muktsar and informed him  that some noise was  

coming out of the office and that Hans Raj, a Gun Man,  

employed for security purposes, was lying in the office in  

an injured condition whereas Sukchain Singh, Conductor No.  

24 was lying dead.  This information was conveyed to the  

police  on  telephone  by  Shri  Jagdip  Singh  on  which  the  

police  came  to  the  Depot  and  found  the  dead  body  of  

Sukchain Singh lying in the office and Hans Raj respondent  

lying  seriously injured.   It  was also  noticed that  the  

locks of the cash box had been broken and the safe was also  

in a  damaged condition.  An inventory revealed that an  

amount  of Rs.  5,61,704/- had  been stolen  from the  cash  

room.  On enquiry, the respondent informed the police that  

some unknown persons had fired at him and Sukchain Singh.  

A  First  Information  Report  against  unknown  persons  was,  

accordingly, recorded.  The inspection of the murder site  

also led to the recovery of one fired cartridge case of 12  

bore shot gun and two live cartridges.  The respondent, was  

interrogated  on  29.2.1996  as  he  was  under  suspicion  by  

Inspector  Ashwani  Kumar  on  which  he  made  an  disclosure  

statement which led to the  recovery of Rs. 4,42,730/- and  

on a further interrogation on 2nd March, 1996 another sum of  

Rs. 1,14,800/- was also recovered.  He was, accordingly,

CRL. A. NO. 1667  OF 2007 3

arrested and ultimately brought to trial for the offences  

aforementioned.  

2.2 The prosecution relied primarily on the statement of  

P.W.  6, Conductor Paramjit Singh, who claimed to have been  

an  eye  witness  to  the  incident  and  also  sought  

corroboration  from  the  fact  that  a  sum  of  more  than  

Rs.5,50,000/- had been recovered at the instance of the  

accused respondent and that the cartridge recovered from  

the spot had been matched with the murder weapon, i.e. the  

gun given to the respondent in his capacity as a guard in  

the office.  The Sessions Judge, accordingly, convicted him  

accused as already indicated above.   

2.3 An appeal was, thereafter taken to the High Court and  

the  High  Court  has,  by  impugned  judgment,  allowed  the  

appeal and acquitted the respondent.  Several points have  

been noted by the High Court, they being:

(i)  that  the  conduct  of  Paramjit  Singh,  P.W.  6  in  

keeping quiet about the incident for about 10 or  

12  days  after  22nd February,  1996  belied  his  

presence at the spot;  

(ii) that the disclosure statement had been recorded  

on 29th February, 1996 and 2nd March, 1996 whereas

CRL. A. NO. 1667  OF 2007 4

the FIR had been recorded on 3rd March, 1996 which  

indicated that no recovery had in fact been made  

pursuant to the statements and could not be taken  

into account in any case;  

(iii)the  prosecution  story  that  the  respondent  had  

shot himself in order to create an alibi was also  

not borne out by the medical evidence as the shot  

had been fired from a distance of more than 5-6  

feet which could not have been possible in the  

case of a self inflicted injury.   

For these reasons, the High Court found that the story did  

not inspire confidence.

3. We have heard Mr. Jayant K. Sud, learned Additional  

Advocate for the State of Punjab and Mrs. K. Sarada Devi  

learned counsel for the respondent,  appointed through the  

Legal Services Committee.  We find that the view taken by  

the High Court was possible on the evidence.  There seems  

to be no plausible explanation as to why P.W. - Paramjit  

Singh, who claimed to have been an eye witness, had kept  

quite for ten days  as his statement that he had kept quiet  

on account of fear is not borne out by the evidence as  

admittedly, the respondent had been arrested on the 29th

CRL. A. NO. 1667  OF 2007 5

February,  1996.   Likewise,  the  prosecution  story  with  

regard to the manner in which Hans Raj suffered the injury  

on his hand appears to be unfounded as the said injury  

could not be self-suffered.   

4. We are, therefore, of the opinion that merely because  

the recovery   of cash had been made allegedly at the  

instance  of  the  respondent  is  itself  in  doubt  for  the  

additional  reason that  the FIR  had been   recorded  long  

after the date of the disclosure statements.  We thus find  

that there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly,  

dismissed.   

       ........................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ........................J      [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 08, 2010.