DAYA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Sessions Case No. 44 of 1989, 14-accused were tried for various offences including Sections 3 and 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the TADA Act") by the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Karnal at Ambala. The Additional Judge by his judgment and order dated 19th February, 1998 convicted the appellant Daya Singh for committing the offence of murder of Gurdeep Singh and attempting to commit murder of PWs Dr. Harnam Singh and Smt. Jaswant Kaur. The appellant is also convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC for committing murder of Khushdev Singh, Gurpreet Kaur and his co-accused Gurjant Singh and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for a period of one year. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC for attempting to cause death of Ram Singh, Somnath and Hira Singh by fire-arms and is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for a period of six months. In addition, he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 5 of TADA Act for possessing one AK 47 rifle with cartridges and is sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for three months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The Designated Court acquitted rest of the accused.

(2.) Against the order of conviction passed by the learned Judge, accused Daya Singh has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 1998. In this appeal, learned Senior Counsel Mr. U. R. Lalit appearing for the appellant has confined his submissions mainly with regard to reliability of evidence of PW-37 Jaswant Kaur and PW-38 Dr. Harnam Singh qua the identification of the appellant.

(3.) The State has filed Criminal Appeal No. 773 of 1998 against the acquittal order and also for enhancement of sentence. With regard to the appeal filed by the State, after going through the evidence on record, it is apparent that the order passed by the Additional Judge does not call for any interference. Confessional statements are found to be not voluntary and are held to be unreliable. There is no other evidence to connect the acquitted accused with the crime.