GURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, a student of government Polytechnic, is said to have been arrested on 5/ 6/12/1988. According to , prosecution they arrested him near Guru Nanak Dcv university and he was found in possession of a mouster type pistol (made in USA) loaded with 5 cartridges. The prosecution produced ASI-Atma singh (PW-2. Investigating Officer. and ASI - mohan Singh (PW-3 in support of the prosecution version. The defence of the appellant was that he was picked up from his hostel on 25/11/1988 and, he was falsely implicated. The Designated court after perusing evidence believed the prosecution case. convicted the appellant under Section 5. of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) act, 1987 ('act' for short) and sentenced him toundergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and imposed Fine of Rs. 5,000. 00 and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. There were thus divergent versions relating to the arrest of the appellant. The appellant had examined rajendrasingh. (DW1kripalsingh, Clerk (DW2 ramdhan Singh, Constable (DW 3, Ajit Singh, (DW 4. Shahbag Singh (DW 5. SI Suizar Chand, (DW 6 and his father Gurcharan Singh (DW 7. Apart from these witnesses, a letter sent on 2 8/11/1988 by the Warden of the Hostel and an application Filed by the appellant's father on 2 8/11/1988 to DIG were Filed as Annexures A and B. The former is a letter sent by the warden to the appellant's father that his son has been arrested on 25/11/1988. The next is the application by the appellant's father that his son was not traceable and he had been abducted by the police. the appellant's arrest is said to have been as a sequel to shooting of Sri Vinod Kumar. Professor in the government Polytechnic. Amritsar on 25/11/1988. A case under Section 307 read with section 34. Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant. And for recovery of pistol he was prosecuted under Section 5. of the Act. The appellant was acquitted by the High court under Section 304. It was held that he was falsely implicated. The arrest of the appellant on 6/12/1988 was disbelieved. The Designated court had discarded the defence version only because the appellant's name could be known on 29/11/1988, therefore, he could not have been arrested on 25/11/1988.

(2.) Having gone through the evidence of the prosecution and defence witnesses, we are of the opinion that the Designated court was not justified in rejecting the defence version as creating evidence to save himself. The letter sent by the warden cannot be ignored. Further, the Finding recorded by the high court in Section 307 proceeding completely demolishes the prosecution version. No further need be said as going through the evidence and considering the circumstances, we are satisfied that the appellant was in fact arrested prior to 6/12/1988 and. therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be maintained. Although we do not propose to probe further into the matter, but we cannot refrain from saying that it is such cases which bring bad name to the police department.

(3.) The appeal consequently succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Designated court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 5 of the Act is set aside. The appellant shall be released forthwith unless wanted in another connection. The fine. if paid, shall be refunded.