SURENDER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Surender Singh challenges judgment dated 22.07.2006 in Sessions Case No.122/2004 arising out of FIR No.4/2003 registered at Police Station Special Cell by which he was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 419/420/468/467/471/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years with total fine Rs. 3,500/-.

(2.) Surender Singh, , Budh Ram, Mahender, Satbir @ Muneem and Bhupender were arrested on 28.01.2003. SI Rajpal Dabas received a secret information that inter-state truck/tempo dacoits would come from Haryana at bypass, Delhi to sell goods loaded in a truck. Raiding party was organized and they reached at bypass Delhi. The informer told them that the culprits were present in the area of Jahangirpuri with robbed truck loaded with goods. Truck No.DL1GA 7449 was searched in the area of Jahangirpuri. Goods were being unloaded from the said truck and reloaded in a tempo. Budh Ram and Bhupender Singh were re-loading the goods whereas Surender Singh, Mahender Singh and Satbir @ Muneem were unloading the goods. Surender Singh disclosed that tempo No.DL1LD1191 belonged to one Rambeer. On checking the bags in the tempo/truck, it was found containing rice. The culprits did not offer explanation as to from where they had got 79 bags of rice. On inquiry, it revealed that case FIR 167/2002 under Section 395/328 IPC was registered at PS Kasola Distt. Rewari in this regard. SI Mahesh lodged First Information Report. Statement of the witnesses conversant with facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the culprits.

(3.) On 24.03.2003 Mahender, Satbir @ Muneem and Bhupender were discharged. Surender Singh and Budh Ram were charged on 03.12.2004 for committing offences punishable under Sections 411/412 IPC (against Surender Singh and Budh Ram) and 419/420/468/467/471/34 (against Surender Singh). Prosecution examined nine witnesses to substantiate the charges. In their 313 statements, Surender Singh and Budh Ram pleaded false implication. On appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted the appellant-Surender Singh for the offences mentioned previously. However, Budh Ram was acquitted of all the charges. It is relevant to note that the State did not file any appeal against Budh Ram's acquittal. The whole case of the prosecution is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. Proper investigation has not been carried out to ascertain the truth. No independent public witness was associated at any stage of investigation. Relevant documents were not collected and produced. Prosecution case was that the truck in question HR 51 GA 1189 was robbed and Surender Singh was found in its possession with fake number plate. The police, however, could not establish that the truck was robbed by Surender Singh. PW-7 (Kan Singh), Surender Singh's cousin from village Mukerian, Distt.Hoshiarpur, Punjab deposed that he was the owner of the truck bearing No.HR 51 GA 1189 and it was registered in the name of his nephew Satinder Pal Singh. On 26.01.2003 Surender Singh, his cousin, had taken the said truck from him to bring wheat from Gurgaon as he had given some money to a person who agreed to give wheat in lieu of money. He did not claim that Surender Singh had taken the truck in question without his consent or permission. There was no question of its being robbed. The police did not investigate to whom tempo DL1LD1191 belonged. The owner of the said tempo was not examined as a witness. It is unclear as to whom the tempo belonged and to whom the stolen rice bags in the said tempo were to be delivered. Again prosecution case was that 79 bags of rice were a robbed/stolen property. The Trial Court did not believe the prosecution on this aspect and acquitted Surender Singh and Budh Ram under Section 411/412 IPC. During investigation, the police did not verify as to who was the owner of 79 rice bags. Owner of the rice bags was not cited a witness. No evidence was collected about the ownership of the rice bags in question. It is not clear if the owner of the rice bag was intimated about the recovery of the rice bags.