http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: MOHINDER SINGH & ANR.HARJINDER SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/09/1996

BENCH: MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) BENCH: MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) FAIZAN UDDIN (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T      M.K.MUKHERJEE, J.      These 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 under. 2(a) 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. (b)  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. (c)  In 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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. (d)  On  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 revolver. 3.   The learned  Designated 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. 4.   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. 5.   To 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. On behalf  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

seizures. For  the foregoing  discussion we  do not find any merit in Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1989. 6.   The 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. 7.   On 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.