CHANDER KANT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will also dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1976 also styled as Chander Kant v. State. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence in Session Case No. 84/75 and in Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1976, he has challenged his conviction and sentence in Sessions Case No. 85/75, vide two judgments dated 4th March, 1976 announced by Shri Joginder Nath, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.

(2.) The prosecution story, in short, was as under : Public Witness 1 Arjun Singh is a business man. He received anonymous telephone calls at his factory premises between 9th and I 1th November 1970. The caller had told him that he belonged to a dangerous gang. Initially Arjun Singh was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 but ultimately he was told to bring a sum of Rs. 3000 at about 4 p.m. on I 1th November, 1970 at Rajghat where a person wearing black jacket and yellow muffler would meet him. Arjun Singh contacted Shri Singhal, the then Superintendent of Police and under the direction of the latter, he reported the matter to SHO Darya Ganj Police Station. Shri 0m Parkash SDPO of Patel Nagar Police Station organised a raiding parly in which he included Shri G.R. Gupta,SDPO of Police Station Darya Ganj, Shri A.L. Chadha, SHO, Police Station Darya Ganj, P.C. Malhotra, Harminder Singh. Davinder Singh and other police officials. Three bundles, each having one note of rupees ten on the top and bottom and remaining having papers of that size, were prepared and kept in a brief case and Arjun Singh was directed to go to the spot where the police party in advance had been sent in plain clothes. Arjun Singh reached Rajghat at the appointed time. Chander Kant appellant who was wearing black jacket and yellow muffler met Arjun Singh and signalled him to move towards bushes and Arjun Singh asked him to show him his boss. The appellant gave a signal whereupon four other persons, namely, Ravi Kant, Prashant Nigarn, R.V. Raghavan and Kanwar Kakkar who were hiding in the bushes came out and surrounded Arjun Singh. Some of them were having hockey stricks, Prashant Nigam was having a knife and one of them was having a hunter, chloroform and packets containing chilly powder. The appellant took out a knife Ex. P 14 and snatched the brief case Ex. P 4 containing the three bundles Ex. P 1 to Ex. P3. In the meanwhile police party came and apprehended the appellant and four other persons. A case was registered vide FIR No. 1381/70 in police station Darya Ganj under Sections 395/397/34 I PC and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the challan against the appellant and four abovesaid persons under Section 395 and 397 Indian Penal Code and another case against the appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The cases were committed to the Court of Sessions where the former case was tried as Session Case No. 84 of 1975 while the latter was tried as Session Case No. 85 of 1976.

(3.) The prosecution examined Arjun Singh, P.C. Malhotra, Govind Lal, R.R. Gupta, Chaudhry 0m Parkash, Harminder Singh, S.I. 0m Parkash, and Inspector A.L. Chadha and Public Witness 1 to Public Witness 8 respectively. The case set up by the appellant and his co-accused in the cross-examination of the witnesses and in their statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was that they had been falsely implicated and that there was a car rally at Rajghat on the day of the alleged occurrence and that they had gone there to see that rally. It was further the case of the appellant, that Ravi Kant, the younger brother of the appellant, was class fellow of Raj Kanwal alias Bobby son of Jagdish Mitter, an employee of Arjun Singh complainant and be used to cut indecent jokes with his brother and on that account he had given severe beating to Raj Kanwar and he has been falsely implicated. It was also his case that neither the complainant nor any of the witnesses had come to Rajghat and that some police men had been sent there to bring a person wearing black jacket and yellow muffler. R.K. Bhanot, Vinod Kumar, Sudhir Datta and Vijay Kumar Sehgal were produced as DW 1 to DW 4 respectively. The learned trial court did not believe the case of the prosecution in regard to the involvement of the other four above mentioned persons and in regard to the recovery of the materials like chloroform bottle, knife, hockey sticks etc. from them and held that the possibility of their having gone to Rajghat to see the car rallye and having been apprehended by the police could not be ruled out. The learned trial court, however, found the appellant guilty on the ground thus the case property had been recovered from him. The appellant was thus convicted under Section 394 read with Section 397 Indian Penal Code in Sessions case No 84 of 1975 and under Section 27 of the Arms Act in Sessions Case No. 85/75 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years in the former and rigorous imprisonment for one year in the latter with a direction that the sentences in both the cases would run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed these two appeals.