MAHABIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS, who are eight in numbers Mahabir Singh son of Kalyan Singh, Sahab Udddin, Chunnni, Banwari Lal, Anwar, Mahabir son of Kishan Lal, Ram Babu and Sattar are aggrieved by their conviction under Sections 399, 402 IPC recorded by IVth Additional Session's Judge, Aligarh in Session's Trial No.197/1976, State Vs. Mahabir Singh and others relating to police station Iglas, district Aligarh and implanted sentences on each of the appellants to 4 years R.I. under Section 399 IPC and 3 years R.I. under Section 402 IPC. Three of the appellants Mahabir Singh son of Kalyan Singh, Banwari Lal and Sahab Uddin are further aggrieved by their conviction under Section 25 Arms Act and implanted sentence to 2 years R.I. therefore by the impugned judgement and order rendered in the aforesaid Session's trial dated 29.4.1978.

(2.) STATED in bird eye view, prosecution allegations against the appellants, as is contained in Exhibit Ka-8 oral F.I.R. dictated by P.W.1 S.I. Balveer Singh at police station Iglas, district Aligarh, were that on 29.1.1976, at the police station itself P.W.1 was tipped about a robbery to be committed the same night. Informer had informed P.W.1 that at 12 p.m. mid-night on tube-well No.28 in village Chandfari, eight or nine dacoits will assemble and will commit dacoity of transformer and hydle wires. Appellant Sattar who was stated to be the gang leader was informed to be having various weapons. Believing the information to be correct, P.W.1 along with S.I. Budh Singh Malik, S.I. B.P. Sharma, A.S.I. R.R. Singh and Constables Latoori Singh, Mukut Singh, Jamin Ali, Amar Singh, Vijan Singh, Kuwar Pal, Lala Ram, Ram Bahadur, Bhagwan Singh, Ram Pal, Prem Pal, Kuwar Pal, Safi Mohammad started from police station, vide rapat no.35, along with witnesses Natthi Singh (armed with S.B.B.L. gun), Chiddha Singh (armed with S.B.B.L. gun), Jagdish Prasad, Kanhiya Lal, Ram Swaroop, Parsa and came to the tube-well No.28 in village Chandfari at 10.30 p.m. Tube-well was inspected by P.W.1, who thereafter divided entire police force into three pickets. P.W.1 became in-charge of the first picket alongwith S.I. B.P. Sharma, Constables Latoori Singh, Mukut Singh, Jamin Ali, Kuwar Pal and witnesses Jagdish Prasad and Kanhiya Lal. The second picket consisted of S.I. B.S. Malik, Constable Ram Pal, Prem Das, Amar Singh and Lala Ram and witnesses Natthi Singh, Sri Prasad and the third picket consisted of S.I. B.P. Sharma P.W.2, Constable Vijan Singh, Kuwar Pal, Ram Bahadur Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Safi Mohammad and witnesses Chiddha Singh and Ram Swaroop. P.W.1 gave instructions to each of the police party members not to smoke or cough and not to raise any voice. They were further instructed that no firing shall be resorted to unless directed by P.W.1. It was also instructed to them that on challenge being made, police party will attempt to apprehend the dacoits. After receiving instructions all the three police parties, laid in ambush at 10.45 p.m. and started waiting for the dacoits to arrive at that spot. At 11.45 p.m. 8 or 9 dacoits came to the spot from road and assembled at the water storage tank of the tube-well. They started conversation amongst themselves that since nobody else is to join them therefore, transformer be detached first and thereafter wires will be cut and after making such planning conversations, they started alighting from the water storage tank. P.W.1 sensed that it was a gang of dacoits, who had assembled there to commit dacoity of transformer and wire that he challenged the dacoits and then police party arrested all of them at the spot, except Sattar who managed to escape in the darkness.

(3.) LEARNED amicus curiae castigating the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence, submitted that the entire prosecution allegations are absolutely bogus and false. All the accused persons were named in the F.I.R. and therefore, I.O. had got animus against them and consequently he implicated them in a false case. Inviting attention of the Court at paragraph 22 of the deposition of P.W.1 and paragraph 7 of the the deposition of P.W.2 it was submitted that it is wholly bizarre and very unnatural that in the entire incident not even a single shot was fired. When appellants were challenged by the police party, they did not resort to any firing. Allegation of lying in trap and challenge by the police party, all are cooked up and unconvincing story. Amicus Curiae further criticised impugned judgement by contending that although the dacoits had assembled at the tube-well to commit theft of the transformer and the wire but no tool for opening the transformer was recovered from their possession and but for a blade, no other apparatus was found from their possession, which could have been useful for un-bolting the transformer, which was fixed at the height of 8 to 10 feet. No rope etc. was found from the possession of the accused persons and it has not been brought on the record as to how and in what manner appellants could have unbolted the transformer. It is further submitted that transformer could not have been carried by the appellants in their hands and therefore, in absence of any vehicle or any other conveyance being arranged by the dacoits to carry the transformer, allegations levelled by the informant P.W.1 regarding theft of transformer and the wire cannot be accepted as true and convincing narration. It is further submitted that testimonies of the fact witnesses are unreliable. There is no independent witnesses to lend credence to the prosecution story which was spelt out only by police personnels and their conduits and therefore, conviction of the appellants through the impugned judgement and order cannot be sustained.