SULEMAN Vs. STATE OF DELHI THR SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by Court of Additional Designated Court-II, Delhi. Suleman and Chiman are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 627/98 and Sadhu Ram is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 750/98. The three appellants along with two others were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402, IPC and Section 5 of the TADA Act. The three accused who were alleged to be in possession of knives were further charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The allegation against the appellants and the other accused was that they were planning to commit a dacoity and for that purpose they had assembled in Sarup Nagar Dharamshala with arms and ammunitions.

(2.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined P.W.2-Head Constable Chand Singh, P.W.3-Rampal Sharma and P.W.6-S.I. Om Prakash. The prosecution had also led evidence to prove that the seized articles were kept in proper custody and that the two fire-arms were examined by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory. Relying upon the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6, the designated Court held that all the five accused had assembled in the Dharamshala at Sarup Nagar as alleged and were planning to loot a petrol pump on that day. As the appellants were held to have made preparations for committing dacoity and assembled for that purpose, they were convicted both under Sections 399 and 402, IPC. The trial Court also held appellants-Suleman and Sadhu Ram guilty under Section 5 of the TADA Act as they were found in possession of fire-arms and ammunitions.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellants took us through the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 and pointed out the inconsistancies in their evidence as regards the place where the Police Officer had received information regarding the accused and non-availability of independent persons for joining the raiding party to witness the outcome of the raid. He also submitted that their evidence even otherwise is not sufficient to sustain conviction under Sections 399 and 402, IPC. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Suleman further submitted that the pistol recovered from him was not found in working order and, therefore, Suleman could not have been convicted under Section 5 of the TADA Act.