NARENDER KUMAR @ NARESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NARENDER Kumar @ Naresh (the appellant) impugns judgments dated 02.02.2012 and 03.02.2012 in Sessions Case No. 80/2011 arising out of FIR No. 71/2005 PS Narela and Sessions Case No. 84/2011 arising out of FIR No. 187/2005 PS Sultanpuri by which he was convicted under Section 392 read with Section 411 IPC and under Sections 186/353 IPC and 25 Arms Act, respectively, and awarded various prison terms.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case in FIR No. 71/2005 PS Narela was that on 30.01.2005 at about 02.30 P.M. on a road, in front of Gurudwara Dera Baba Resham Singh, Krishan Nagar, the appellant and his associates ­ Satish Kumar (A -2) and Shyam Sunder (A -3) sharing common intention robbed complainant ­ Raj Kumar @ Raju of Toyota Corolla bearing No. DL 7CE 3953 using 'deadly' weapons. Daily Diary (DD) No. 12A (Ex.PW -4/A) was recorded at 02.48 P.M. at PS Narela regarding the incident. SI Suraj Bhan to whom the investigation was assigned lodged First Information Report after recording complainant ­ Raj Kumar @ Raju's statement (Ex.PW -1/A). Efforts were made to find out the assailants but to no effect. Prosecution case as unfolded in charge -sheet FIR No. 187/2005 PS Sultanpuri was that on 01.02.2005 at about 06.30 P.M. at T point, Pahaladpur, Pooth Kalan road, near Sector 23, Rohini, Narender (A -1) and his associates ­ Satish Kumar (A -2) and Shyam Sunder (A -3) voluntarily obstructed police officials ASI Ram Kumar, HC Vijender and Const.Dilawar Singh, etc. in the discharge of the public duties and used criminal force to prevent or deter them from performing their lawful / public duties. The appellant also fired at ASI Ram Kumar in an attempt to murder. They all were apprehended at the spot. Country -made pistols from each of the appellant (A -1) and Satish Kumar (A -2); and a dagger from Shyam Sunder (A -3) were recovered. The vehicle in which they were travelling at the time of apprehension was found subject matter of case FIR No. 71/2005 PS Narela. Necessary intimation was given to the concerned Investigating Officer. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge - sheets were submitted against the appellant and his associates in both the cases. Various witnesses were examined by the prosecution to establish their guilt. In 313 statements, the appellant and his companions denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in their conviction under Section 392 IPC read with Section 411 IPC (in case FIR No. 71/2005); under Sections 186/353 IPC and 25 Arms Act (in case FIR No.187/2005). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has challenged the conviction in both the cases.

(3.) APPELLANT 's counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell in grave error in relying upon the testimonies of police officials without independent corroboration. The prosecution did not offer plausible explanation for not associating independent public witnesses despite their availability. The complainant Raj Kumar @ Raju improved his initial version in a supplementary statement recorded after a considerable delay on 16.02.2005. The Investigating Officer erred in not holding Test Identification Proceedings and identification by the complainant for the first time in Court had no value as he had no occasion to see the covered faces of the assailants. Initially, the complainant had alleged that there were two assailants, but in the subsequent statement, the number increased to three on 16.02.2005. The assailants were shown to the complainant when they were produced in un -muffled faces before the Trial Court. The recovery of the weapons from the possession of the appellant and his associates is suspect. The fired bullet was not recovered from the spot. Inordinate delay of six months in sending the weapons to Forensic Science Laboratory has remained unexplained. No fingerprints of any of the assailants were found on the weapons. No gun powder residue analysis was done either on the interior of the vehicle or of the hands of the appellant. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that the impugned judgments are based upon fair appraisal of the evidence and there are no cogent and valid reasons to disbelieve the complainant who had no prior ill -will or animosity against the appellant and his associates to falsely implicate them.