PRITAM Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment dated January 22, 2002 was pleased to convict Pritam, appellant herein, and his co-accused Hardeep for various offences punishable under Sections 397 and 411, 419, 468 and 471 IPC respectively. Pritam has filed this appeal to challenge his conviction under Section 397 IPC. The brief facts of the case are that on February 25, 1995 Onkar Nath Khanna had locked his service station known as Khanna motors at about 6 PM. At that time a new Maruti 800 without registration and another car bearing No. DL-IC- 8567 were parked at the workshop for repairs. The new car was parked in the garage while the other car was standing outside. Onkar Nath's employees Suresh (a.k.a. Surinder) and Raghunath Rai, watchman and helper, respectively, used to stay in the workshop during the night. On the following morning at about 4 AM four persons armed with a pistol and knifes entered the workshop. They tied Surinder and Raghunath with a rope and after breaking open the lock took away the new car as well as two number plates of the other car. When the complainant reached his workshop he was informed of this incident by Surinder and Raghunath. He lodged a complaint and on its basis case was registered at PS Sadar Gurgaon. During investigation Pritam and one Sukh Ram were arrested. They made separate statements on April 18, 1995 to the effect that they both along with Radhey @ Gurcharan had committed the robbery of the car from the workshop. They further disclosed that they had been paid Rs. 9000/- and 10,000/- respectively by Radhey, who took the car. Radhey was arrested on October 5, 1995. He made a disclosure statement confirming that he had sold the robber car to Hardeep. When Hardeep was arrested on October 17, 1995 disclosed that he had been delivered a car with fake registration No. DL-IC- 8567. He sold this car to Satinder Singh Gill of Chandigarh after getting fake bill and registration certificate prepared in the name of Satinder Singh. The robber car was recovered from Chandigarh on October 21, 1995.

(2.) AFTER completion of the investigation, Pritam, Sukh Ram, Radhey @ Gurcharan and Hardeep were sent up for trial. After charges were framed, the main witnesses examined by the prosecution were Onkar Nath Khanna (PW 1), Inderpal Singh (PW 2), Baljit Singh (PW 3), Raj Kumar (PW 4), Asa Mohd. (PW 5), Rajesh Mehra (PW 6), Inspector Raj Singh (PW 7), HC Ram Phal (PW 8), Rohtash Singh (PW 9), ASI Mahender Singh (PW 10), C. Mohan Singh (PW 11), Addl. C.J.M. Ashok Bhardwaj (PW 13), HC Pohap Singh and Raghunath Rai (PW 14). The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the prosecution case stating they had been falsely implicated. The learned trial judge accepted the prosecution case and concluded that Raghunath Rai (PW 14) had correctly identified the appellant in court as the man who was armed with a knife at the relevant time and who had entered the workshop with another person armed with a pistol. Some more persons had come with these two men. The two men had tied up Raghunath. When Surinder came up he was also tied. Thereafter, the two intruders made a signal and few other men came up stairs and bolted the door from out side, after which they drove away in the new car. The learned trial judge concluded that Pritam's guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of his identification by Raghunath and accordingly Pritam was convicted under Section 397 IPC. Hardeep was found guilty under Sections 411, 419, 468 and 471 IPC. The others were acquitted.

(3.) RAGHUNATH stated that on February 26 at about 4.30 AM when he was sleeping in the factory (workshop) two persons entered the room, one was holding a knife and the other a pistol. Raghunath got up and he was tied with a muffler by both of them. The two robbers made a signal and few more men came up and Surinder was also tied with a muffler. Raghunath was categoric that he could identify the man holding the knife. He pointed towards Pritam in court and stated that he was the one who held the knife at that time. After the robbers had taken the car away Raghunath called for help and he was rescued. Thereafter, the owner of the workshop was informed of the incident. The important point to note in this case is that even though Pritam was taken into custody on April 18, 1995 no attempt was made by the investigating officer to arrange for a test identification parade and require Raghunath and Surinder to come forward and identity him from among a group of persons of similar physical description. Raghunath on cross-examination had categorically stated that he had not known any of the assailants previously. However, the defence counsel was not content with this statement and he pressed the question of identify further only to enable the witness to state that he did not see accused Pritam outside the court on that day. This is a glaring example of careless cross-examination which could have had a serious impact on Pritam's defence.