Jaswant v. State Of Haryana .

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Delving into the facts now, Ishwar Singh, ASI along with his police party were on patrol duty in Sector 21-D, Faridabad when they received secret information that Jaswant s/o Tilak Raj resident of Delhi and Parveen s/o Ram Pal resident of U.P were attempting to loot the passing vehicles near Labour Chowk LPG Agma Gas Agency, Sector 21-D, Faridabad and were present in a white coloured Indigo car bearing registration No. DL-6C-2988 and if raid is effected, they can be secured. On receipt of information, the police officers proceeded towards that area and switched off the lights of their vehicle and saw a maruti car going. They saw two persons attempting to stop it but the maruti driver evaded and sped away. The police officials could not note down the registration number of maruti vehicle as there was no light but they nabbed the accused. They revealed their name as Jaswant and Parveen. Their search was carried out and they were found in possession of spring actuated knife and an iron rod. The police also took into possession the Indigo car bearing registration No. DL-6C-2988.

The police subsequently came to know that the car had been stolen and was owned by the Life Insurance Corporation and an FIR under Section 379 IPC had already been registered in Madhya Pradesh. Parveen and Jaswant accused could not produce any document to show their ownership. They suffered a disclosure statement. The investigations were completed and a report for commission of offences under Sections 398 and 401 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act was laid against them in the Court.

Charge for commission of offence punishable under Sections 398, 401, 411 and 471 IPC was framed against both the accused. Charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act was also framed against Parveen. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution examined nine witnesses, which included Ishwar Singh, ASI and HC Yasin Khan, who were present at the spot. Besides them, Parveen Rajapurkar an assistant from Regional Transport Authority office, Gwalior proved the title of the Indigo car. ASI Hukam Singh had partly investigated the case. He had handed over the car to the Madhya Pradesh police.

In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded false implication. They did not lead any evidence in defence.

The trial Court accepted the evidence and convicted both the appellants to the sentence mentioned hereinabove.

I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance perused the record.

It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the entire story of the prosecution on the face of it appears to be falsely framed as even the police failed to note down the colour of maruti car, which the appellants had attempted to stop and there was no complaint by the maruti driver and it was a story concocted by the police only to frame the appellants. It was urged that a secret information had been received by the police and they could have joined independent witnesses to lend credence to their story. It was urged that a FIR had already been registered regarding theft of the car and the accused could not be tried for the offence under Section 411 IPC and no case under Section 398 IPC was made out. It was urged that it is not a case of the prosecution that the appellants had used the weapons nor had caused hurt and the conviction under Section 398 IPC was bad. It was urged that if the arguments did not find favour and as the accused had already undergone custody over 3½ years, they may be sentenced to the imprisonment already undergone. Reliance was placed upon Mohd. Rashid v. State of Delhi, 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 779 and Rakesh v. State of NCT of Delhi, decided on 20.07.2010 (CRA No. 208 of 2003).

Per contra the submissions made on behalf of the State was that the car had been stolen from Madhya Pradesh and they had come to another State with the stolen vehicle, which was carrying a different number plate and it has been proved by the prosecution that the car was bearing a fake number plate and therefore, charge under Section 471 IPC was framed. It was urged that the appellants could not submit any proof of the ownership of the vehicle and the vehicle had been stolen from Madhya Pradesh. It was contended that the testimony of the official witnesses did not contain any inconsistencies so as to disbelieve it and the police officials had no enmity and it was not possible for the police party to note the colour or the number of the maruti car as there was no light and it should not be taken against the prosecution.

The police had received specific information that Jaswant and Parveen were planning to loot passing vehicles near Agma Gas Agency store situated in Sector 21-D, Faridabad. This information was received on 09.02.2009 after 9.30 pm. Ishwar Singh, ASI was already present in Sector 21-D, Faridabad on patrol duty. On receipt of the information, he prepared a raiding party and proceeded towards the spot. Both Ishwar Singh, ASI and HC Yasin Khan have deposed that the headlights of their vehicle were switched off so that their identity was not disclosed and they saw a white colour Indigo car parked at a deserted spot and the appellants tried to stop that maruti car but the driver swung the car and evaded the persons and sped away. It would not have been possible for the police party to either notice the colour or the registration number as it was dark. This fact does not go against the prosecution. Both the witnesses have deposed that they over-powered the appellants, who revealed their details and on search one spring actuated knife was recovered from Parveen. Jaswant was found holding an iron rod. On search of the car, the police found two number plates. One of the number plate carried the registration of Madhya Pradesh. The car was having a fake number plate. The police had called a photographer and the photographs of the vehicle show that the number plates bear a Delhi registration number.

During investigation, it had been discovered that this car was stolen and it was owned by Life Insurance Corporation. The appellants had not made any claim to the vehicle nor they could produce any proof regarding their title. They were unable to come up with any explanation how the car was found in their possession and in Haryana that night. The accused are not residents of the area. Both of them are natives of District Gonda, Uttar Pradesh.

One of the submission made on behalf of the appellants was that the police had not joined independent witnesses and the prosecution case should be thrown out. The argument is baseless. The police officials had no enmity with the appellants. The appellants did not lead any evidence to show that there was any previous hostility between them or any member of the raiding party. There was no reason for the police officials to arrest innocent persons. Non-joining of independent witnesses in this case was not fatal.

Both the appellants were armed with deadly weapons. It was not necessary that the weapons should have been used. The fact that they were out in the open holding deadly weapons makes the offence complete and there is no reason to doubt the testimony of the official witness. Had the weapons been used then Section 398 IPC would not have been applicable.

The record shows that the appellants have other pending cases registered against them. Therefore, the appellants deserve no leniency from the Court.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, there is no ground to differ with the view taken by the trial Court. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is affirmed. Both the appeals stand dismissed.