Toni @ Ranjodh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (now State of Uttarakhand)

#2. Heard Mr. J.S. Virk learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vinod Sharma learned counsel for the State and perused the lower court record.

#3. Prosecution story in brief is that one SLR (self loading rifle) no. 2752, was looted from the policemen on 28.02.1992, within the limits of Sitarganj, after killing the policemen. Crime no. 73 of 1992, was registered in respect of offences punishable under section 396, 332 IPC, and one punishable under section ¾ Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act at said police station. The present incident relates to 27.01.1994, when P.W.4 Sub Inspector Ayub Hussan alongwith Sub-Inspector Kalyan Singh (P.W.1), Constable 3 Mohd. Adil, constable Anand Kumar, Constable Anil Kumar, Constable Sushil Kumar, Head Constable Ramesh Mishra and Constable Indrapal were doing combing operation against the terrorist activities within the limits of police station Bazpur. When police party reached near Bannakhera, P.W.3 Sub Inspector Prem Singh Ahlawat alongwith some other police constables, coming in jeep bearing registration no. UP0-50/3001, met the combing police personnels. They also joined them in the combing operation. Thereafter, both the police teams reached at plot no. 27 within the limits of village Khanwari, and saw a person sleeping near lantina bushes. The police surrounded the man, and recovered one SLR with a carry bag containing thirty eights cartridges. Said person disclosed his name as Toni @ Ranjodh Singh. The recovery was made by the policemen at 5:30 p.m. Five cartridges were found loaded in the recovered SLR no. 2752 (Regarding said weapon it is already mentioned that the same was looted in the incident dated

28.02.1992 after killing the policemen). A recovery memo (Ex. A1) was prepared by the 4 police. On the basis of said report crime no. 24 of 1994, was registered against the accused Toni @ Ranjodh Singh who was arrested at the time of recovery in respect of offences punishable under section 25 Arms Act and under section 412 IPC, at police station Bazpur. The investigation was taken up by Sub Inspector Kailash Chandra Joshi who after investigation of the case submitted charge sheet (Ex. A3) against accused Toni @ Ranjodh Singh for his trial in respect of offences punishable under section 25 Arms Act and under section 412 IPC.

#4. The Magistrate, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, on 06.06.1996, after hearing the parties framed charge of offence punishable under section 25 Arms Act against accused Toni @ Ranjodh Singh. A separate charge appears to have been framed in respect of offence punishable under section 412 IPC. Sessions Trial 5 no. 395 of 1995 arose out of offence punishable under section 25 Arms Act, and Sessions Trial no. 138 of 1995, arose out of offence punishable under section 412 IPC. Both the cases were consolidated. After the accused pleaded not guilty to both the charge, the prosecution got examined P.W.1 Sub Inspector Kalyan Singh, P.W.2 Sub Inspector N.S. Tyagi, P.W.3 Sub Inspector Prem Singh Ahlawat and P.W.4 Sub Inspector Ayub Hussain .

#5. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which accused pleaded that evidence adduced against him is false. He further pleaded that he was arrested on 12.08.1993, by Punjab Police, and false recovery has been shown from him within the limits of police station Bazpur. In defence D.W.1 Smt. Prakash Kaur (mother of the accused/appellant) was got examined. The trial court after hearing the parties found that the prosecution has successfully proved charge of offence punishable under section 412 IPC, and one punishable under section 25 Arms Act, and 6 after hearing on sentence convict was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and directed to pay fine of ` 1,000/- under each court. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 22.02.2000, this appeal was filed by the convict before Allahabad High Court from where it is received by transfer under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (Central Act 29 of 2000) for its disposal.

#6. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that a false recovery has been shown from the present accused/ appellant Toni @ Ranjodh Singh. It is further pointed out on behalf of the appellant that from the document Ex. B1 it is clear that father of the appellant had written letter on 13.01.1993, that his son has been picked up by the police from the house. In this connection, further attention is drawn to Ex. B2 which is copy of forwarded letter sent by the Commanding Officer of GREF, an organization in which the father of the accused worked. Also two other documents purporting to have been sent by the Punjab Police Authorities for looking 7 into the matter referred on behalf of the appellant.

#7. I have scrutinized these papers on record relied on behalf of the defence. In the opinion of this Court documents Ex. B1 to B5 cannot be said to have been proved on record. D.W.1 Smt. Prakash Kaur who has attempted to prove these documents in her examination in chief, in cross- examination she admits that she is illiterate and when documents Ex. B1 to B5 were shown to her she told that she is unaware of the contents of these documents. On the documents Ex. B2 to B4, when she were shown signatures of Modha Singh, she identified same as of her husband Jagtar Singh, as such this Court is in full agreement with the trial court that these documents cannot be read evidence as proved.

#8. After going through the statements of P.W.4 Ayub Hussain and P.W.1 Sub Inspector Kalyan Singh regarding recovery made by the police party on 27.01.1994, of the weapon SLR and forty three cartridges (five loaded and thirty 8 eight kept in the bag), this Court finds no reason to disbelieve their testimony. It is pertinent to mention here that a weapon like SLR cannot be easily planted by the police.

#9. From the documents on record, it is established by the prosecution that on 28.02.1992, there had been a incident wherein terrorists had killed the policemen and SLR no. 2752 was looted. In this connection inquest report of the deceased policemen dated 28.02.1992, Ex. A9, Ex. A10, Ex. A11, Ex. A12, Ex. A13, Ex. A14 and Ex. A15 are on the record. Sketch of the dead bodies, and other papers prepared in 1992 are also proved on the record. Entry made in the General Diary (Ex. A4) on 28.02.1992, further corroborates the evidence adduced by the witnesses P.W.1 Sub Inspector Kalyan Singh, and P.W.4 Sub Inspector Ayub Hussan that recovery of said SLR made from the present accused/ appellant Toni @ Ranjodh Singh on 27.01.1994, was the looted property of crime no. 73 of 1992, police station Sitarganj. 9

#10. Having reappreciated the entire evidence on record, this Court does not find any force in this appeal. The sentence awarded by the trial court is also just and reasonable and in consonance with the provisions of law.

#11. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated

22.02.2000, passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 395 of 1995 and Sessions Trial no. 138 of 1995 is hereby affirmed. Accused/appellant Toni @ Ranjodh Singh is on bail. His bail is cancelled. He shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence . Lower court record be sent back to make the accused serve out the remaining part of the sentence. Parul (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 01.10.2012