Delhi District Court
State vs Jabbar Singh on 15 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. AMBIKA SINGH :ASJ-02
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT : NEW DELHI
STATE VS. JABBAR SINGH AND ORS
CNR No. DLWT-01-000471-2011
SC No. 57534/2016
FIR NO. 34/2011
PS Mayapuri
Date of commission of offence 24.04.2011
Name of complainant Shiv Raj Singh
Name of accused person. (1) Jabbar Singh
S/o Late Sh. Sita Ram
(2) Mukesh Kumar Yadav
S/o Late Sh. Kashi Ram Yadav
Offence complained of 395/397/412/34 IPC & 27 Arms
Act
Plea of the accused Pleaded not Guilty
Arguments heard/ order reserved 15.01.2025
Final order Acquitted
Date of such order 15.01.2025
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1. In brief, the allegations against all the accused
persons are that on 24.04.2011 at about 11:15 PM at WH-
88, Writers Safe Heart Pvt Ltd., Phase-1, Maya Puri,
Delhi, accused persons committed dacoity of single barrel
gun, six rounds and one mobile phone and at the time of
committing the said dacoity, country made katta was used
and hurt was caused and thereby accused persons
committed offence u/s 395/397/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act.
Further, on 21.08.2011 from the residence of accused
Digitally signed
by AMBIKA
AMBIKA SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.01.18
FIR No. 34/2011 15:32:08
+0530
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 1 of 56
PS Mayapuri
Jabbar Singh situated at village Daud Ganj, PS Ali Ganj,
Distt. Eta, U.P. accused Jabbar Singh dishonestly received
certain stolen property i.e. one mobile phone make Nokia
2600 (IMEI No. 35433700666-24770) without SIM,
knowing that the same has been transferred by the
commission of dacoity and on 21.06.2011 from the
residence of accused Mukesh Kumar Yadav situated at
village Daud Ganj, PS Ali Ganj, Distt. Eta, U.P. accused
Mukesh Kumar Yadav dishonestly received certain stolen
property i.e. one barrel gun (SBBL Gun), without chap
belonging to Shiv Raj Singh Yadav, knowing that the same
has been transferred by the commission of dacoity and
both the said accused persons committed the offence u/s
412 IPC. It is pertinent to note that accused Yaseen is
already PO and CCL 'G' and 'BBY' have already declared
as juvenile and proceedings against the accused Jalil have
already been abated.
2. After considering the material on record and hearing
the Ld. Addl. PP and accused persons, a prima facie case
for the offence punishable under section U/s
395/397/412/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act was made out
against the accused persons to which they pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has
examined 15 witnesses:-
4. PW-1 ASI Saran Mal has proved the FIR Ex. PW1/A
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 2 of 56
PS Mayapuri
and endorsement on it which is Ex. PW1/B.
5. PW-2 Sh. Shiv Raj Singh Yadav has deposed that he
was on duty at WH-88 Writers Safeguard Pvt Ltd Phase-I
Mayapuri. He further deposed that on 24.04.2011 at about
11/11.15 PM, 5-6 persons came there by the side of wall
and out of those persons, one person asked from him about
the way of Ram Mandir. He started to give the directions
for Ram Mandir. The person to whom he was telling about
the direction of Ram Mandir, pushed him with such a force
that he fell down on the floor with chair and the gun
alongwith Patta (Belt in which there were six cartridges)
which was being carried by him, was also snatched away.
He further deposed that he does not remember if there was
any cartridge in the Gun or not. At the time of incident, he
was on duty at the gate of the office and Harender was
also on duty in the basement of the office. Just before the
incident Balram alongwith one another person who was
from Distt Etah came there to fetch water. At the time of
incident Harender, Balram and the above mentioned third
person ( From Etah) were inside the room and he was on
duty at the gate of office. All those 5-6 persons forced him
inside the room where Balram, Harender and other person
were present and thereafter they bolted the room from
inside. All those 5-6 persons started to beat them. He
somehow let free himself from the clutches of accused
persons and rushed upstairs towards the roof of the
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 3 of 56
PS Mayapuri
building. Out of those accused person, one accused
followed him, however, he could not succeed to apprehend
him and after having reached on roof he immediately
bolted the door of the roof. He was in perplexed condition
and made the call to the PCR at 100 number. He has
further deposed that he also raised the noise and when
nobody came forward he started to throw the Gamlas
( Flower Pots) on the vehicles which were parked near the
building. He thrown those flower pots with the intension
that the attentions of the persons may be turned towards
them. After about 10-15 minutes of making call, PCR
official reached there while blowing the Siren. On hearing
the Siren, the accused persons run away from there. He
has further deposed that on the arrival of police, he went
down stairs and he narrated the incident to police. Local
police officials also reached there. Balram, Harender and
the above mentioned third persons were taken to a hospital
by Police official, for their medical examination. He did
not get himself medically examined at hospital as he was
only slapped by the accused persons and did not sustain
any grievous injuries. His statement Ex PW2/A was
recorded with regard to incident. The accused persons
were demanding the keys of the basement of the company
from him while beating him as the cash of the company
was lying there. However they could not succeed to get the
keys. He has further deposed that there was a CCTV
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 4 of 56
PS Mayapuri
Camera which covered the whole incident. He also pointed
the place of occurrence to the police who drew a site plan
Ex PW2/B. During investigation, he came to know that the
police got recovered his Gun and five cartridges. Later on
he got released by Gun on Superdari, the photograph of
which are available on record vide photographs Ex P.1 to
P.3 and correctly identified the same and he also correctly
identified the case property i.e. Ex P.4 to P.6, P-7, P-8. He
was cross examined by ld. defence counsel and he deposed
as under "My duty hours were from 8:00 PM to 8:00 A.M.
On the day of incident, there were 3 & 4 more persons.
Harinder was on duty on that day. I am not able to recall
the name of other persons who were present at the time of
incident. There were 6-7 persons who committed offence
on that day. There was sufficient light at the spot. I had
called the police on 100 number. Police had reached at the
spot within 10-15 minutes after making the call. I had
visited police station twice or thrice in connection with the
present case. Police had recorded my statement on the
spot, on the day of incident. My statement was also
recorded in the police station. I do not remember the
name and designation of the police official who recorded
my statement. It is wrong to suggest that my statement
was not recorded at the spot. It is correct that police had
prepared the site plan at my instance. Police had recorded
the statement of all the persons present at the spot at the
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 5 of 56
PS Mayapuri
time of incident, in my presence. But I do not remember
the names of the persons whose statements were recorded
by the police. It is wrong to suggest that police had not
recorded the statement of any of the persons in my
presence. Police had not called me at the police station
after the arrest of the accused. It is wrong to suggest that
no such incident had ever occurred in my presence. It is
wrong to suggest that the license of my gun is forged one.
It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely".
6. PW-3 Ct. Aditya Kumar has deposed against the
accused CCL 'BBY' and trial of the said accused has
already been separated.
7. PW-4 Ct. Bir Singh has deposed that on
24/24.04.2011 at 11.30 PM, he alongwith SI Dinesh went
to spot i.e. WH-88, Mayapuri, Phase-II, where SI Dinesh
recorded the statement of complainant Sh. Shiv Raj Singh.
He prepared the rukka and sent him to PS for registration
of FIR. He got the FIR registered and came back to the
spot with the copy of FIR and original rukka. He handed
over the same to the IO. IO directed him to get medical
done of Shiv Raj Singh and two other persons. He took
them to DDU hospital and got their medical done. When
he came to the spot, IO prepared the site plan in his
presence and made inquiries from the guards of the
company present at the spot. He was cross examined by
ld. defence counsel, he deposed as under;- "IO might have
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 6 of 56
PS Mayapuri
received the information. I cannot tell by what mode he
had received the information. IO had made the departure
entry while leaving from PS alongwith me but I cannot tell
its number. IO had not got issued any arm before leaving
the PS from the spot. I cannot tell the names of the
persons with whom IO made the inquiries. We went on
foot. Other police staff was present at the spot but no one
accompanied us from the PS. Three-four police persons
were there but I cannot tell their names. I do not
remember who else went with me for medical examination
of injured person. I went for getting medical examination
done through TSR whose number I do not remember now.
We left th hospital at around 4.45 am and reached at the
spot at 5.00 am. Rukka was handed over to me at about
1.15 am. There was street light at / near the spot. I
cannot tell the number of the electricity pole. I do not
know whether IO had shown any electricity pole in the site
plan. It is wrong to suggest that I did not join the
investigation on the fateful day. It is wrong to suggest that
I did not go to the spot. It is wrong to suggest that no site
plan was prepared in my presence. It is wrong to suggest
that I am deposing falsely".
8. PW-5 SI Charan Singh has deposed that on
18.06.2011, at about 4:00 PM, a secret informer came and
informed him that one accused Jabbar Singh involved in
incident of robbery dated 24.04.2011 would come near
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 7 of 56
PS Mayapuri
Appollo Hospital, Shine Bagh, Sarita Vihar at the office of
ZEB Security and if raid be condcuted, he could be
apprehended. He reached PS Maya Puri and met IO/Insp.
R.N. Chaudhary. He informed him regarding the said
secret information. Thereafter, he alongwith him and Ct.
Jai Singh and Shiv Sagar reached near Appolo Hospital,
Sarita Vihar. Two secret informers met them and again
said secret informer did not came to his office as secret
informer informed the information by phone in his office.
He has further deposed that Insp. R.N Chaudhary sent one
secret informer with Ct. Jai Singh to office of ZEB
Security. He alongwith IO, Ct. Shiv Sagar and one secret
informer started waiting for accused Jabbar Singh near
Apolo Hospital. At about 6:30 PM, one person was found
coming on foot from Ashram towards Apolo Hospital. The
said person was having one double barrel gun hanging on
his one shoulder and he was having a bag hanging on
another shoulder. He has further deposed that the secret
informer pointed towards him stating that he is accused
Jabbar Singh. On his identification, he was stopped. IO
interrogated him. Initially, he was not disclosing his name
properly and correctly. On sustain interrogation, he told his
name as Jabbar Singh and accused Jabbar Singh confessed
regarding the incident of present case. Accused Jabbar
Singh was arrested vide memo Ex. PW5/A and his
personal search Ex. PW5/B and recording his disclosure
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 8 of 56
PS Mayapuri
statement Ex. PW5/C. Witness correctly identified accused
persons present in the court on that day. He was cross
examined by ld. defence counsel, he deposed as under "We
reached the spot from PS Maya Puri in the Santro Car of
Inspector R. N. Chaudhary. I do not remember its
registration number. We reached at the spot at about 5:30
PM. When Accused was apprehended and arrested some
passer byes were passing from the road. IO/Ins. R N
Chaudhary requested some passer byes to join the
investigation but none joined stating there genuine
grounds. Double barrel gun was on right shoulder of
accused and the bag was on the left shoulder. Disclosure
statement of accused was recorded at the spot. Perhaps I
had not told in my statement that initially accused was not
giving his name properly and correctly. When accused was
arrested he was wearing pant and shirt, however, I do not
remember its colour. I do not remember the make of
double barrel gun. It is wrong to suggest that accused
Jabbar Singh was not arrested from the above said place
or that accused was arrested from his native place Ali
Ganj, Eta, U.P. It is wrong to suggest that I did not visit
the spot on 18.06.2011 or that all the documents were
prepared in the police station which were signed by me
later on. It is wrong to suggest that signature of accused
was taken on a blank paper in the police station and later
on converted in an arrest memo at PS. It is wrong to
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 9 of 56
PS Mayapuri
suggest that I am deposing falsely".
9. PW-6 Sh. Harender Yadav has deposed on
11.04.2011, he was working as Security Guard at WH-88.
He joined the said job on the same day. He was employee
of ZEB Security. On 24.04.2011 at about 10.30 PM, his
duty was in the basement of premises of WH-88. Another
security Guard Shiv Raj Singh was deputed as Security
Guard on the main gate. At about 10.30 PM, he came on
the ground floor from the basement for urination. At that
time, he put lock on the basement. Prior to coming out
from basement, he kept his double barrel gun in the
basement. Duty of Security Guard Shiv Raj to keep
vigilance outside the premises as well as inside the
premises as many vehicles used to be parked outside the
premises. He has further deposed that when he returned
after urination, he found one Sunder Pal (he was residing
in the adjacent village of Shiv Raj) and one other person
whose name he does not remember now. They were talking
to each other, he also joined them. At about 11.00 PM, two
persons came near to them and they asked from Shiv Raj
Singh about the way of Ram Mandir, and in pursuance to
that Shiv Raj Singh told the way for Ram Mandir. In the
meanwhile two more person also reached there. Those two
persons who came later on, pushed Shiv Raj due to which
Shiv Raj fell on the ground from the chair. He has further
deposed that at that time Shiv Raj was carrying a gun and
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 10 of 56
PS Mayapuri
he fell alongwith the Gun. As soon as, Shiv Raj fell on the
ground one assailant out of four assailants snatched the
gun of Shiv Raj. Thereafter, all the four assailants pushed
him, Shiv Raj, Sunder Pal and one other person who was
talking with them, inside the premises while giving
beatings to them. The assailants also gave beatings to them
by gun of Shiv Raj which was snatched by them. He has
further deposed that the four assailants also came inside
the premises. When one of their companion (whose name
he does not remember) resisted one of the assailant hit him
by the butt of gun of Shiv Raj due to which he received
injury on his head above the eye. Due to injury, the said
companion set on the floor by holding his head. Thereafter
all the four assailants gave beatings to them and in the
meanwhile Shiv Raj fled towards the roof of the factory
through stairs and he closed the door of the room from his
side. He has further deposed that thereafter, all the
assailants dragged him and Sunder Pal towards basement
and they were demanding key of basement. In the
meanwhile, Shiv Raj thrown the flower pot ( Gamla) from
the roof due to which he and Sunder Pal freed themselves
from their clutches and he threw the keys of basement
towards electric wire. He has further deposed that out of
those four assailants one was having pistol (Tamancha)
and one was having screw driver. One assailant was
wearing checkdar shirt and one assailant had tied cloth on
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 11 of 56
PS Mayapuri
his face. Shiv Raj made a call to the police from the roof
and police reached at the spot. One or two more assailants
also joined the four assailant when initially those four
assailants were pushing them inside the premises. Hearing
the siren of police all the assailants fled away from the spot
while taking away the gun of Shiv Raj. He has further
deposed that when the assailants were fleeing from the
spot, the tied cloth on the face of one assailant fell on the
ground and as such he had seen his face also. Thereafter,
police took him, Shiv Raj, Sunder Pal and one another
companion Bal Ram whose name now he recollect. He
has further deposed that in the morning of 25.04.2011, they
all the four return at the spot from the hospital. Then police
made inquires from him in detail and recorded his
statement. On 30.07.2011, he went to Tihar Jail to identify
the accused persons. TIP of accused Mukesh is shown to
the witness and which he identified his signatures at point
A in which it is mentioned that witness is unable to
identify the accused. The said proceeding is exhibited as
Ex PW6/B. Witness can not identify the accused Jabbar
Singh and Mukesh Kumar Yadav as when the assailants
pushed them inside the factory as they switched off the
light and as such he could not see their faces.
10. PW-7 Sh. Sunder Pal has deposed that first time
visited Delhi in the year 2011 to visit his Mausi's son
Dharamvir. Dharamvir was residing in a room in the area
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 12 of 56
PS Mayapuri
of Mayapuri in front of a bank. Dharamvir was working as
a gun man in the said bank. He does not remember the date
& month of incident, however, it was of 2011. On the date
of incident Dharamvir was not present in Delhi as he had
gone to his native place. In the year 2011, at about 10-11
PM, he went to the bank for taking water as one water
filter was installed there. One Shiv Raj Singh was deputed
there as gun man. He was talking with 2-3 other persons.
He was standing inside of the main gate. One person in
muffled face came there and asked about way of Ram
Mandir from Shiv Raj. At the same time, 15-20 persons, all
of sudden came there and started beating them. They
pushed him, Shiv Raj and his (Shiv Raj's) 2-3 other
companions inside the factory and they also came inside.
He has further deposed that they gave him beatings in such
a manner that he became unconscious. The assailants were
having screw driver and pistols (katta). The assailants also
gave beatings to other security guards. Assailants snatched
the gun of gunman Shiv Raj. Somehow Shiv Raj fled
towards roof of the factory. Shiv Raj thrown some
objects/brick from roof for gathering attention of public
persons. Shiv Raj had made a call to police and police
came after some time but prior to that the assailants ran
away from there. The assailants also robbed mobile phone
make Nokia of PW-7. Police made inquiries from him and
recorded his statement. Witness correctly identified the
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 13 of 56
PS Mayapuri
case property i.e. mobile phone which is Ex. PW7/A. He
could not identify the accused persons and deposed that he
could not identify them as hey were in muffled face.
11. PW-8 Sh. Balram has deposed that in the year 2011,
he had come to Delhi in search of a job. His co-villager Sh.
Shiv Raj was working as guard in the area of Mayapuri
and he was residing along with his two associates. The
name of one of them was Harinder. He does not remember
the name of another one. He further deposed that on
25.04.2011, it was Saturday, he was present in the room of
Shiv Raj. Harinder had gone to drink water outside the
room. Other persons were also in the room. At about 11:00
PM, two boys came and they inquired from Shiv Raj about
the way which goes to Ram Temple. In the meantime, two
other boys came and one of them hit a piece of stone and
another gave a leg blow to Shiv Raj. Shiv Raj fell down
and one of the boys snatched the gun of Shiv Raj. All the
four boys started beating all of them and they started
asking for keys of bank. He has further deposed that he
retaliated and faced them and in order to save themselves
he made one of them fall on the ground. Rest five started
beating PW-8 again asked Shiv Raj to go upstairs. The
assailants were having country made pistols (katta) in their
hands. They were showing the weapons and cartridges to
them. The cartridges were made of bronze. Shiv Raj went
upstairs and he bolted the door from inside. One of the
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 14 of 56
PS Mayapuri
assailant hit PW-8 with the butt of the gun. The police had
reached there by that time. He heard the sound of siren of
police but police did not came to the spot. He has further
deposed that Shiv Raj threw the flower pots from the roof
of the bank. The flowers pots fell on the vehicles which
were parked there and after hearing the sound police came
inside the bank. Police took him to the hospital in police
van. Witness could not identify the accused persons. He
was cross examined by ld. defence counsel and he deposed
as under "I had come to Delhi one day prior to the
incident. I did not know the associates of Shiv Raj. I knew
only Shiv Raj. Total 6 persons had come to the spot. Two
persons were outside the bank and there was vehicle. The
entire incident was covered by CCTV Cameras which were
installed there. I had asked the police to check the footage
of CCTV Cameras. Police had checked the same. I do not
know whether police had recorded the facts about the
CCTV Camera in my statement. I had seen six boys in the
bank. Two persons were standing outside and one person
must be in the vehicle. In this way robbers must be 9 in
number. I had told this fact to the police. At this stage, the
statement of the witness being recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC is
read over to him and after hearing the same he stated that
it is correct that the number of robbers as 9 is not
mentioned in my statement recorded. My statement was
recorded in the police station. I do not remember the
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 15 of 56
PS Mayapuri
names of police officials who took me to the hospital in a
Maruti Van. I do not remember the registration number of
Maruti van. Vol. I am almost illiterate. After the incident I
went to police station about 3 times in connection with this
case. It is wrong to suggest that I was not present at the
spot on the day of incident. It is wrong to suggest that I
did not suffer any injury. It is wrong to suggest that none
of the accused persons who are present in the court had
ever robbed me".
12. PW-9 Ct. Shiv Sagar has deposed that on
18.06.2011, he along with Ct. Jai Singh had joined the
investigation with IO/Insp. R. N. Chaudhary in present
case. When they were present at the gate of the police
station Mayapuri SI Charan Singh posted in the special
staff west district at that time also joined them. Thereafter,
they all reached at the main gate of Apollo Hospital,
Mathura Road, Delhi where two informers met them. IO
directed Ct. Jai Singh to go to the office of ZEB security
office along with one informer and the remaining police
officials including himself were waiting for accused Jabbar
Singh. He has further deposed that at about 6:30 PM, one
person came from Ashram side on foot. He was carrying a
double barrel gun in his shoulder and was also carrying a
mobile phone in his hand. He was apprehended by the IO
on the pointing out of the informer. Accused revealed his
name as Jabar Singh who is present in the Court on that
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 16 of 56
PS Mayapuri
day and correctly identified. Thereafter, accused was
medically examined by the IO in DDU Hospital. Witness
cross examined by ld. defence counsel and he deposed as
under "I had not called any public witness from the nearby
area in my presence to join the investigation. It is wrong to
suggest that I had not joined the investigation in this case
or that no documents mentioned above were prepared in
my presence or that I have signed the said documents at
PS Mayapuri. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing
falsely".
13. PW-10 ASI Murari Lal has deposed that on
21.06.2011, he alongwith HC Mahender, Ct. Krishan
Mundey joined the investigation with IO of this case and
took accused Jabbar Singh who was on police remand in
this case and reached village Kamalpur, District Mainpuri,
UP at about 05.30 PM. Thereafter, at about 05.30 PM,
accused Mukesh Kumar Yadav was arrested from his
house who was present inside his house. Accused Mukesh
got recovered a single barrel gun without Chap (Wooden
handle) from his room. Accused Mukesh told that the said
gun was robbed by them from Mayapuri in this case and
interrogated by the IO. Thereafter, accused Mukesh were
arrested vide arrest memo Ex.10/A and his personal search
was got conducted vide memo Ex.PW-10/B. His disclosure
statement was recorded vide Ex.PW-10/C. Single barrel
gun was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 17 of 56
PS Mayapuri
10/D. Thereafter, they alongwith accused persons reached
at Village Daudganj, District Eta, UP, where accused
Jabbar got recovered one mobile phone make Nokia of
black colour from iron box lying in the last room of his
house and accused Jabbar told that the said mobile phone
was robbed by accused and his associates in this case. The
mobile phone was taken into possession by the IO vide
seizure memo Ex.PW-10/E. He has further deposed that
thereafter, they came back to Delhi and reached Delhi on
22.06.2011. Thereafter, accused persons were taken to
DDU Hospital where they were medically examined and
thereafter, accused persons were produced before Ld MM
and IO obtained PC remand of co-accused Mukesh and
thereafter accused persons led them to the place of
occurrence and co-accused Mukesh pointed out the place
of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex.PW-10/F.
Thereafter, accused persons were brought to PS Mayapuri
and were kept in lockup. He has further deposed that on
23.06.2011, he again joined the investigation in this case
with HC Mahender and Ct. Krishna Mundey. Accused
persons took them to Anand Vihar ISBT, in search of other
co-accused persons. Secret informer met there. Thereafter,
they alongwith informer started waiting for the arrival of
co-accused persons and at about 10.30 PM one person
reached there and he surrendered himself before the IO in
his presence and he revealed his name as Bir Bhan. (CCL
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 18 of 56
PS Mayapuri
'BBY') was declared juvenile during trial). Witness
correctly identified the case property Ex. PX-1. He was
cross examined by ld. defence counsel and he deposed as
under;- "We left Delhi for recovery alongwith the accused
in Innova Car, however, I do not remember the registration
number of the said car. It was a private vehicle. At
Kamalpur IO had not asked any public person there to
join the investigation at the time of recovery of the gun and
mobile phone. It is wrong to suggest that I had not
accompanied the IO to Kamalpur or Daudganj with the
accused persons. It is further wrong to suggest that
nothing was disclosed or got recovered by accused
persons or at the instance. It is further wrong to suggest
that all the seizure memos were signed by me while sitting
at PS Maya Puri at the instance of IO. It is further wrong
to suggest that the case property i.e. gun, chap of gun
(wooden handle) and mobile phone mentioned above were
planed upon accused persons by the IO to work out a blind
case of dacoity. It is further wrong to suggest that both the
accused persons were lifted from their houses, retained at
PS Maya Puri and later on falsely implicated in this case.
It is further wrong to suggest that IO has planed the said
gun on accused after taking the same from the guard".
14. PW-11 SI Mohammed Yubsiroon has deposed
against the CCL 'BBY' and the said CCL is a juvenile and
trial of the said accused has already been separated and
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 19 of 56
PS Mayapuri
accused Yasin (Since PO).
15. PW-12 Sh. Dinesh Kumar has deposed that on the
intervening night of 24.04.2011 and 25.04.2011 at about
12:30 am DD no. 35-A and 36-A Ex. PW-12/A and Ex.
PW-12/B respectively were assigned to him. He alongwith
Ct. Bir Singh went to the spot i.e. WZ-88, Phase I, Maya
Puri, Delhi. On Shiv Raj Singh Yadav met him there. He
made endorsement on the rukka which is Ex. PW-12/C. He
sent Ct. Bir Singh to PS alongwith rukka to get the case
registered. He mentioned his request in the rukka itself to
hand over the investigation to Inspector R.N. Chaudhary.
After some time Inspector R.N. Chaudhary alongwith Ct.
Bir Singh came to the spot and he handed over the
documents to him.
16. PW-13 ASI Mahender Singh has deposed that on
21.06.2011, he alongwith accused Jabbar Singh, HC
Murari Lal, Ct. Krishan Munde and Insp. R.N. Chaudhary
went to village Kamalpuri, District Mainpuri, U.P. in the
search of co-accused Mukesh Kumar Yadav. The co-
accused Mukesh was found in his house and one single
barrel gun was recovered from his house. Accused Mukesh
told that he had robbed the said gun in the area of the
Mayapuri. The said gun was converted in a sealed parcel
and the same was seized vide seizure memo already Ex.
PW10/D. Thereafter, they went to house of accused Jabbar
Singh at village District Etah, U.P. Accused Jabbar Singh
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 20 of 56
PS Mayapuri
got recovered a mobile from his house. Mobile phone was
also seized by the IO. Thereafter, they returned to Delhi on
22.06.2011. Accused Mukesh pointed out the place of
occurrence. He was cross examined by Ld. Defence
counsel and he deposed as under;- " I am not aware in
the PS falls Village Kamalpur. After reaching at Village
Kamalpur, I reached at the house of accused Mukesh
Kumar Yadav with the help of the police but I do not
remember today the local PS. The local PS of Village
Kamalpur was away at a 5-7 KM from the house of the
said accused. We reached at the house of accused after
7:00 PM on 21.06.2011. Darkness had started at that time.
I can not tell the direction of main entrance of the house of
the said accused, probably it was the direction of Northern
side. The single barrel gun was got recovered by the
accused from room of the house of the said accused. I do
not remember how many room were in the house of the
said accused but probably 2-3 room were there. I can not
tell in which room from where the said barrel gun was
recovered. The gun was lying in the corner of the room in
the house of the said accused. 2-3 local Police official
accompanied with us at the time of raid at the house of the
accused but I can not tell the exact number of the police
official. The said gun was sealed at the house of the said
accused. Only said gun was recovered from the house of
accused Mukesh. After completing the raid of the house of
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 21 of 56
PS Mayapuri
the said accused, we all reached at local PS and then
proceeded towards district Etah i.e house of accused
Jabbar but I do not remember the name of village in Etah
today. It is wrong to suggest that I never visited the house
of accused Mukesh Kumar Yadav and village Kamalpur
with accused Jabbar or that no alleged said gun was
recovered from at his instance. It is wrong to suggest that I
could not tell the exact number of the local Police official
accompanied with us at the time of house of the accused
Mukesh because I never visited Village Kamalpur. I do
not know the recovered gun was in working condition or
not. I do not know the distance from the house of accused
Mukesh to village of accused Jabbar. IO has not recorded
the statement of the local witnesses in my presence. It is
wrong to suggest that I never visited the house of accused
Jabbar. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely".
17. PW-14 Sh. Dharmender Rana, Ld. Principal
Registrar, Arms Force Tribunal, R.K. Puram, New Delhi
has proved the proceedings of TIP of accused Jabbar Singh
is Ex. PW14/A.
18. PW-15 Rtd. Insp. R.N. Chaudhary has deposed that
in the intervening night of 24/25.04.2011, he was present
in the police station and at about midnight at about 12:00
AM, duty officer informed him that a robbery was
committed at WH-88 Writer Safeguard (P) Ltd. near police
station Maya Puri, upon which he also reached at the spot.
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 22 of 56
PS Mayapuri
He met SI Dinesh and other staff at the spot. He also met
victims Shiv Raj Singh Yadav, Harender Yadav, Balram &
Sunder Pal at the spot. SI Dinesh had prepared tehrir and at
about 1.15 AM, he sent Ct. Veer Singh along with rukka to
police station for registration of the FIR. He inspected the
spot and also made inquiries from the above said victims.
He has further deposed that at about 2.30 AM, Ct. Veer
Singh came back at the spot and handed over to him copy
of FIR and original rukka. He prepared the site plan at the
instance of complainant Shiv Raj Yadav which is already
exhibited as Ex. PW2/B. All the above said 4 victims were
sent to DDU Hospital for their medical examination with
police staff. Thereafter, he came back to PS and after
medical examination, police staff brought the above said
victims to PS, where he made inquiries from them and
recorded the supplementary statement of Shiv Raj Singh
Yadav and statements of other injured u/s 161 Cr. P. C. He
has further deposed that he also collected recording of
CCTV footage of the spot in pen-drive. He also collected
dum-data of the spot from all mobile service providers. He
examined all the previous and present employees of the
above said company. Accused Jabbar Singh had earlier
worked with the said company as a security guard,
however, he did not join the investigation. The mobile
phone of Sunder Pal was kept on surveillance and the same
was found active on SIM/mobile No.8445696006 on
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 23 of 56
PS Mayapuri
05.05.2011 and the tower location was showing as Farad
Khana Village & PO Kurawali District Mainpuri, UP. He
has further deposed that on 06.05.2011, he along with
special staff, West reached at Kurawali, District Mainpuri,
UP and met with Ms. Sonali Verma, who was registered
owner of the above said SIM. He examined Ms. Sonali
Verma, who told him that she had given her mobile phone
for repairing to one person Faeem, who was the owner of
mobile repairing shop and the said person gave her one
temporary mobile phone for her used. She further told that
she had only called once by using the said mobile and
returned back it to Faeem when her phone was got
repaired. He has further deposed that thereafter, Ms. Sonali
Verma along with her father took them to the shop of
Faeem and he examined Faeem, who told him that the
mobile phone in question was given to him by unknown
person for repairing and he returned back the said mobile
phone to said person after repairing it. He did not get any
clue regarding robbers after examining the said witness.
He has further deposed that during the course of
investigation, he along with SI Charan Singh of special
staff and other members of special staff visited the village
of suspect Jabbar Singh on 21.05.2011. However, he was
not found there. He has further deposed that on 18.06.2011
on the basis of secret information, accused Jabbar Singh
was apprehended near Apollo Hospital, Sarita Vihar and
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 24 of 56
PS Mayapuri
interrogated him. On 21.06.2011, he alongwith the police
staff and accused Jabbar Singh went to PS Kurawali, Distt
Mainpuri, U.P. The assistance of Local police was also
taken and thereafter, they went to the village Kamalpur. In
the Kamalpur, co-accused Mukesh Kumar Yadav was
arrested from his house. Thereafter, on the instance of co-
accused Mukesh Yadav, one gun SBBL was recovered
without chaap from his house. He seized the same vide
seizure memo already Ex. PW10/D. He has further
deposed that he alongwith accused Jabbar Singh and co-
accused Mukesh went to the PS Aliganj, Distt Etha, U.P.
The assistance of local police was also taken. Thereafter,
they went to the village Daudganj at the house of accused
Jabbar Singh wherein accused Jabbar Singh got recovered
one mobile phone make Nokia 2600 Black Colour. The
same was seized by him. Thereafter, on the instance of
co-accused Mukesh Kumar Yadav, they went to the place
of occurrence. He prepared the pointing out memo of the
incident while co-accused Mukesh Kumar was in muffled
face. He has further deposed that on 23.06.2011, one CCL
'BBY' (since Juvenile) was surrendered to him at ISBT
Anand Vihar. He arrested him. One live cartridges was
recovered from him and he was in muffled face and was
sent to J/C alongwith co-accused Mukesh. He has further
deposed that on 15.07.2011, co-accused Yasin (since PO)
was produced in court through production warrant from
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 25 of 56
PS Mayapuri
Etha Jail, U.P. He took permission of the court to
investigate the accused Yasin. Witness correctly identified
the accused persons present in the court on that day as well
as case property Ex. P-1 to P-2, P-4 to P-6, Ex. P-7. He
was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel and he has
deposed as under;- "In this case, total accused persons 8
out of which 3 were juvenile. I do not know what was the
fate of the case registered in JJB. It is wrong to suggest
that I went to the village Kamalpur with the special staff.
It is correct that I did the arrival entry in the Karawali PS
and took the assistance of the local police. I reached in the
afternoon however, I do not remember the exact time. One
police person from Karawali PS joined in the investigation
however, I do not remember his name. No public witness
joined there. The distance from Karawali PS to house of
the accused is about 8-10 KM. I reached at the house of
accused Mukesh at around 2:00 PM on 21 st June. The
direction of accused is east side. I went to inside the front
room of the house. Accused Mukesh himself recovered the
gun without chaap. I verified the license. I do not know the
license was obtained by the owner from Mizoram. I had
not placed on record the verification of gun license. I have
not placed the record of departure from the PS Mayapuri
to Karawali. I do not remember the fate of TIP of accused
Mukesh Yadav. It is wrong to suggest that the TIP was
refused on the fact that accused Jabbar Singh was shown
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 26 of 56
PS Mayapuri
to the complainant in PS. The mobile phone recovered
from Jabbar Singh was pertaining to Sundar Lal.
Statement of Sundar Lal was also recorded by me. No
ownership document was provided by Sundar Lal to me
regarding ownership of his mobile phone. Mobile phone
was recovered without sim. It is wrong to suggest that
mobile phone has been planted upon the accused Jabbar
Singh. I alongwith spl staff and other police person went
to the arrest of accused Jabbar Singh in our govt vehicle.
It is wrong to suggest that accused Jabbar Singh was
arrested from his resident situated at Delhi. It is wrong to
suggest that I had not visited the house of accused
persons. It is wrong to suggest that the gun, and mobile
phone was planted upon the accused Jabbar Singh and
Mukesh Kumar Yadav. The statement of complainant
Shivraj Singh, Harinder Yadav, Sundal Lal and Balram
were recorded in PS. It is wrong to suggest that I am
deposing falsely and accused persons have been falsely
implicated in the present case".
19. Accused Mukesh Yadav has admitted the TIP Ex. P-
1 (Colly) in the statement u/s 294 Cr. PC. Both the
accused persons have also admitted the MLC bearing no.
7807 of Shivraj Singh, 7808/11 of Harender and 7909/11
of Balram, all dated 25.04.2011 is Ex. X-2, X-2 & X-3 in
the statement u/s 294 Cr. PC.
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 27 of 56
PS Mayapuri
STATEMENT U/S 313 CR.P.C
20. After completing the prosecution evidence,
statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. PC were recorded.
Accused persons have denied the allegations of the
prosecution. They deposed that they are an innocent and
they have been falsely implicated in this case. However,
they did not lead any defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
21. I have heard the arguments of ld. counsel for
accused and ld. Addl. PP at length and perused the record
carefully.
22. It is being argued by Ld. defence counsel that none
of the PW has able to correctly identify the accused
persons and even other PWs have turned hostile on the
aspect of identity of the accused persons, therefore, the
testimony of PWs is not reliable. Further, the accused
persons have been acquitted in all other cases in which
they are initially arrested and have been falsely implicated
in the present case and the case property has been planted
upon them.
23. On the other hand, Ms. Parul Singh, Ld. Addl. PP
duly opposed the submissions made on behalf of the
accused persons with reference to the evidence on record.
Also, it is argued that the depositions of the prosecution
witnesses establish beyond doubt that the accused persons
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 28 of 56
PS Mayapuri
had killed the deceased and there is direct evidence to this
effect Hence, the Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that
accused persons be convicted for the offence under Section
395/397/412/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act.
FINDINGS:
24. I have carefully examined the testimonies of all the
prosecution witnesses. The relevant sections are
reproduced below for ready reference.
Section 395 IPC reads as under:
395. Punishment for dacoity.--Whoever
commits dacoity shall be punished with
2
[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 397 IPC reads as under:
Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause
death or grievous hurt:- if, at the time of
committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any
deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person,
or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any
person, the imprisonment with which such offender
shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
Offence u/s 412 IPC states that:
Dishonestly receiving property stolen in
the commission of a dacoity.--Whoever
dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the
possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe
to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity,
or dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows
or has reason to believe to belong or to have belonged
to a gang of dacoits, property which he knows or has
reason to believe to have been stolen, shall be punished
with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 29 of 56
PS Mayapuri
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine.
TESTIMONY OF EYE-WITNESSES
25. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.04.2011 at
about 11:15 PM at WH-88, Writers Safe Heart Pvt. Ltd,
Phae-1, Mayapuri, Delhi, accused persons committed
dacoity of single barrel gun, six rounds and one mobile
phone and at the time of committing the said dacoity,
country made katta was used and hurt was caused to him.
26. PW-2 Shiv Raj Singh Yadav has deposed that on
24.04.2011 at about 11/11:15 PM, 5-6 persons came there
by the side of wall and out of those persons, one person
asked from him about the way of Ram Mandir. He further
deposed that the person to whom PW-2 was telling about
the direction of Ram Mandir, pushed him with such a force
that he fell down on the floor with chair and the gun
alongwith Patta (Belt in which there were six cartridges)
was being carried by PW-2, was also snatched away. He
further deposed that all those 5-6 persons forced him inside
the room where Balram, Harender and other person were
present and thereafter, they bolted the room from inside
and all those 5-6 persons started to beat them. He
somehow let free himself from the clutches of accused
persons and rushed upstairs towards the roof of the
building and out of those accused person, one accused
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 30 of 56
PS Mayapuri
followed PW-2, however, he could not succeed to
apprehend him and after having reached on roof he
immediately bolted the door of the roof. He was in
perplexed condition and made the call to the PCR at 100
number. He further deposed that on hearing the Siren, the
accused persons run away from there. He further deposed
that he did not get himself medically examined at hospital
as he was only slapped by the accused persons and did not
sustain any grievous injuries and the accused persons were
demanding the keys of the basement of the company from
him while beating him as the cash of the company was
lying there. However they could not succeed to get the
keys. Witness correctly identified the accused persons and
case properties. In the TIP proceedings of the accused
Mukesh Kumar Yadav, PW-2 Shiv Raj Singh Yadav has
stated in his statement that "I am unable to identify the
culprit". Hence, PW-2 Shiv Raj Singh Yadav has failed to
identify the accused Mukesh Kumar Yadad in the TIP
proceedings. Accused Jabbar Singh has refused to take
participate in the TIP proceedings. However, in the cross
examination of PW-2 Shiv Raj Singh Yadav has denied the
suggestion that no such incident had ever occurred in his
presence.
27. PW-6 Sh Harinder Yadav has deposed that at about
11.00 PM, two persons came near to him and they asked
from Shiv Raj Singh about the way of Ram Mandir, in the
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 31 of 56
PS Mayapuri
meanwhile two more person also reached there. Those two
persons who came later on, pushed Shiv Raj due to which
Shiv Raj fell on the ground from the chair. He has further
deposed that at that time Shiv Raj was carrying a gun and
he fell alongwith the Gun, one assailant out of four
assailants snatched the gun of Shiv Raj. He further
deposed that the assailants also gave beatings to them by
gun of Shiv Raj which was snatched by them. He has
further deposed that all the assailants dragged him and
Sunder Pal towards basement and they were demanding
key of basement. He has not identified the accused Jabbar
Singh and Mukesh Kumar Yadav and he deposed that
when the assailants pushed them inside the factory, they
switched off the light and as such he could not see their
faces. Despite the cross examination by Ld. PP for the
State, PW-6 Harender Yadav could not identify the
accused Jabbar Singh and Mukesh Kumar Yadav. In the
TIP proceedings Ex. PW6/B also, PW-6 has not identified
the accused Mukesh Kumar Yadav.
28. PW-7 Sh. Sunder Pal has deposed that in the year
2011, at about 10-11 PM, he went to the bank for taking
water as one water filter was installed there and one Shiv
Raj Singh was deputed there as gun man, he was standing
inside of the main gate. He further deposed that one person
in muffled face came there and asked about way of Ram
Mandir from Shiv Raj. At the same time, 15-20 persons, all
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 32 of 56
PS Mayapuri
of sudden came there and started beating them. They
pushed him, Shiv Raj and his (Shiv Raj's) 2-3 other
companions inside the factory and they also came inside.
He has further deposed that they gave him beatings in such
a manner that he became unconscious. The assailants were
having screw driver and pistols (katta). The assailants also
gave beatings to other security guards. Assailants snatched
the gun of gunman Shiv Raj. Somehow Shiv Raj fled
towards roof of the factory. He further deposed that
assailants also robbed mobile phone make Nokia of PW-7.
Witness correctly identified the case property i.e. mobile
phone which is Ex. PW7/A. However, he could not
identify the accused persons and deposed that he could not
identify them as they were in muffled face. Despite being
cross examined by Ld. PP for the State, he failed to
identify the accused persons.
29. PW-8 Sh. Balram has deposed that on 25.04.2011 at
about 11:00 PM, two boys came and they inquired from
Shiv Raj about the way which goes to Ram Temple, in the
meantime, two other boys came and one of them hit a
piece of stone and another gave a leg blow to Shiv Raj.
Shiv Raj fell down and one of the boys snatched the gun of
Shiv Raj. He further deposed that all the four boys started
beating all of them and they started asking for keys of
bank. He has further deposed that he retaliated and faced
them and in order to save themselves he made one of them
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 33 of 56
PS Mayapuri
fall on the ground and the assailants were having country
made pistols (katta) in their hands. He could not identify
the accused persons. Despite being cross examined by Ld.
PP for the State, witness has failed to identify the accused
persons.
30. As discussed above, this court has finds that the
prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the
accused persons namely Jabbar Singh and Mukesh Kumar
Yadav beyond shadow of doubt, as the PW-2 Shiv Raj
Singh Yadav though correctly identify the accused persons
present in the court on that day, however, he himself was
not able to identify the accused Mukesh during TIP
proceedings. Further, none of the PWs has able to identify
the accused Mukesh during TIP proceedigns. PW-2 Shiv
Raj Singh Yadav and PW-6 Harender Yadav have not
identified the accused Mukesh Kumar Yadav in the TIP
proceedings Ex. P-1 and PW6/B and PW-6 Harender
Yadav have turned hostile despite being cross examined by
Ld. PP for the State which creates doubts of the
prosecution's story.
31. It is argued by Ld. defence counsel that there are a
lot of discrepancies in the testimony of PWs. Only PW-2
Shiv Raj has supported the case of the prosecution and
every other public witness have turned hostile. Even PW-2
Shiv Raj Singh identified the accused persons for the first
time in the court and he failed to identify the accused
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 34 of 56
PS Mayapuri
Mukesh Kumar in TIP proceedings. Though accused
Jabbar Singh Kumar refused TIP. Let as first discuss the
law in the TIP proceedings.
32. Section 54A of the CrPC.
"Section 54A. Identification of person arrested.─ Where
a person is arrested on a charge of committing an
offence and his identification by any other person or
persons is considered necessary for the purpose of
investigation of such offence, the Court, having
jurisdiction may, on the request of the officer in charge
of a police station, direct the person so arrested to
subject himself to identification by any person or
persons in such manner as the Court may deem fit.
Provided that, if the person identifying the person
arrested is mentally or physically disabled, such
process of identification shall take place under the
supervision of a Judicial Magistrate who shall take
appropriate steps to ensure that such person identifies
the person arrested using methods that person is
comfortable with:
Provided further that if the person identifying the
person arrested is mentally or physically disabled, the
identification process shall be videographed."
33. In Mukesh Singh Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi)
dated 24.08.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Criminal appeal No. 1554 of 2015 held as under;-
29. This provision for giving directions by the
Court as to the manner in which test parade is to
be conducted may be viewed as treating the
Court as part of the investigating agency.
Without having any provision like Section 54A
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 35 of 56
PS Mayapuri
there has been so long no difficulty in holding
test identification parades. There are plenty of
judicial pronouncements to show the safeguards
to be followed while holding identification
parade.
34. This provision for giving directions by the
Court as to the manner in which test parade is to
be conducted may be viewed as treating the
Court as part of the investigating agency.
Without having any provision like Section 54A
there has been so long no difficulty in holding
test identification parades. There are plenty of
judicial pronouncements to show the safeguards
to be followed while holding identification
parade.
37. Facts which establish the identity of any
person or thing whose identity is relevant are,
by virtue of Section 9 of the Evidence Act,
always relevant. The term 'identification' means
proving that a person, subject or article before
the Court is the very same that he or it is
alleged, charged or reputed to be. Identification
is almost always a matter of opinion or belief.
38. The identification has by itself no
independent value. As stated by Viscount
Haldane L. C. in Rex v. Christie, (1914) A. C.
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 36 of 56
PS Mayapuri
545 (551) (E):-
"its relevancy is to show that the witness "was able to
identify at the time and to exclude the idea that the
identification of the prisoner in the dock was
anafterthought or a mistake".
39. Lord Moulton (with whom Viscount
Haldane L. J. agreed) said at page 558 :
"Identification is an act of the mind, and the primary
evidence of what was passing in the mind of a man is
his own testimony, where it can be obtained."
40. During the investigation of a crime
committed by persons unknown to the
witnesses, the persons arrested on suspicion of
their complicity in the crime have got to be
confronted by the investigating authority with
the witnesses so that they can find out whether
they are the persons who committed the crime
or not. Before the investigating authorities send
up a case to Court, they must be satisfied that
the persons arrested by them are the persons
accused of having committed the crime.
42. Phipson writes in his Law of Evidence,
Edn. 8, p. 392:-
"In criminal cases it is improper to identify the accused
only when in the dock; the police should place him,
beforehand, with others, and ask the witness to pick him
out."
43. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in the
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 37 of 56
PS Mayapuri
case of Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 1
SCC 118, had the occasion to consider (i) the
purpose of conducting a TIP, (ii) the source of
the authority of the investigator to do so, (iii)
the manner in which these proceedings should
be conducted, (iv) the weight to be ascribed to
identification in the course of a TIP, and (v) the
circumstances in which an adverse inference
can be drawn against the accused who refuses to
undergo the process. After due consideration of
the aforesaid, this Court summarised the
principles as follows:-
"43.1 The purpose of conducting a TIP is that persons
who claim to have seen the offender at the time of the
occurrence identify them from amongst the other
individuals without tutoring or aid from any source. An
identification parade, in other words, tests the memory
of the witnesses, in order for the prosecution to
determine whether any or all of them can be cited as
eyewitness to the crime.
43.2 There is no specific provision either in CrPC or
the Evidence Act, 1872 ("the Evidence Act") which
lends statutory authority to an identification parade.
Identification parades belong to the stage of
the investigation of crime and there is no
provision which compels the investigating
agency to hold or confers a right on the accused
to claim a TIP.
43.3 Identification parades are governed in that context
by the provision of Section 162 CrPC. 43.4 A TIP
should ordinarily be conducted soon after the arrest of
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 38 of 56
PS Mayapuri
the accused, so as to preclude a possibility of the
accused being shown to the witnesses before it is held.
43.5 The identification of the accused in court
constitutes substantive evidence.
43.6 Facts which establish the identity of the accused
person are treated to be relevant under Section 9 of the
Evidence Act.
43.7 A TIP may lend corroboration to the identification
of the witness in court, if so required.
43.8 As a rule of prudence, the court would, generally
speaking, look for corroboration of the witness'
identification of the accused in court, in the form of
earlier identification proceedings. The rule of prudence
is subject to the exception when the court considers it
safe to rely upon the evidence of a particular witness
without such, or other corroboration.
43.9 Since a TIP does not constitute substantive
evidence, the failure to hold it does not ipso facto make
the evidence of identification inadmissible.
43.10 The weight that is attached to such identification
is a matter to be determined by the court in the
circumstances of that particular case.
43.11 Identification of the accused in a TIP or in court
is not essential in every case where guilt is established
on the basis of circumstances which lend assurance to
the nature and the quality of the evidence.
43.12 The court of fact may, in the context and
circumstances of each case, determine whether an
adverse inference should be drawn against the accused
for refusing to participate in a TIP. However, the court
would look for corroborating material of a substantial
nature before it enters a finding in regard to the guilt of
the accused."
44. In the very same judgment referred to
above, this Court observed as under;-
"46. ... In this backdrop, the contention of the
appellants that the refusal to undergo a TIP is borne out
by the fact that Sandeep and Rajesh were known to each
other prior to the occurrence and that PW 4, who is a
prime eyewitness, had seen Rajesh when he would
attend the court during the course of the hearings,
cannot be brushed aside. Consequently, in a case, such
as the present, the Court would be circumspect about
drawing an adverse inference from the facts, as they
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 39 of 56
PS Mayapuri
have emerged. In any event, as we have noticed, the
identification in the course of a TIP is intended to lend
assurance to the identity of the accused. The finding of
guilt cannot be based purely on the refusal of the
accused to undergo an identification parade. In the
present case, we have already indicated that the
presence of the alleged eyewitnesses PW 4 and PW 5 at
the scene of the occurrence is seriously in doubt. The
ballistics evidence connecting the empty cartridges and
the bullets recovered from the body of the deceased with
an alleged weapon of offence is contradictory and
suffers from serious infirmities. Hence, in this backdrop,
a refusal to undergo a TIP assumes secondary
importance, if at all, and cannot survive independently
in the absence of it being a substantive piece of
evidence." [Emphasis supplied]
45. In Munshi Singh Gautam (D) & Ors. v.
State of M.P., reported in (2005) 9 SCC 631,
this Court observed as under:-
"16. ... The whole idea of a test identification parade is
that witnesses who claim to have seen the culprits at the
time of occurrence are to identify them from the midst of
other persons without any aid or any other source. The
test is done to check upon their veracity. In other words,
the main object of holding an identification parade,
during the investigation stage, is to test the memory of
the witnesses based upon first impression and also to
enable the prosecution to decide whether all or any of
them could be cited as eyewitnesses of the crime. The
identification proceedings are in the nature of tests and
significantly, therefore, there is no provision for it in the
Code and the Evidence Act. It is desirable that a test
identification parade should be conducted as soon as
after the arrest of the accused. This becomes necessary
to eliminate the possibility of the accused being shown
to the witnesses prior to the test identification parade.
This is a very common plea of the accused and,
therefore, the prosecution has to be cautious to ensure
that there is no scope for making such an allegation. If,
however, circumstances are beyond control and there is
some delay, it cannot be said to be fatal to the
prosecution. The evidence of mere identification of the
accused person at the trial for the first time is from its
very nature inherently of a weak character. The purpose
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 40 of 56
PS Mayapuri
of a prior test identification, therefore, is to test and
strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is,
accordingly, considered a safe rule of prudence to
generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony
of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused
who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier
identification proceedings. This rule of prudence,
however, is subject to exceptions, when, for example,
the court is impressed by a particular witness on whose
testimony it can safely rely, without such or other
corroboration. The identification parades belong to the
stage of investigation, and there is no provision in the
Code which obliges the investigating agency to hold or
confers a right upon the accused to claim a test
identification parade. They do not constitute substantive
evidence and these parades are essentially governed by
Section 162 of the Code. Failure to hold a test
identification parade would not make inadmissible the
evidence of identification in court. The weight to be
attached to such identification should be a matter for
the courts of fact. In appropriate cases it may accept the
evidence of identification even without insisting on
corroboration. ..."
46. In Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel v. State of
Gujarat, (2000) 1 SCC 358, after considering the
earlier decisions this, Court observed:- (SCC p. 369,
para 20) "20. It becomes at once clear that the
aforesaid observations were made in the light of the
peculiar facts and circumstances wherein the police is
said to have given the names of the accused to the
witnesses. Under these circumstances, identification of
such a named accused only in the Court when the
accused was not known earlier to the witness had to be
treated as valueless. The said decision, in turn, relied
upon an earlier decision of this Court in the case of
State (Delhi Admn.) v. V.C. Shukla [(1980) 2 SCC 665 :
1980 SCC (Cri) 561 : AIR 1980 SC 1382] wherein also
Fazal Ali, J., speaking for a three-Judge Bench made
similar observations in this regard. In that case the
evidence of the witness in the Court and his identifying
the accused only in the Court without previous
identification parade was found to be a valueless
exercise. The observations made therein were confined
to the nature of the evidence deposed to by the said
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 41 of 56
PS Mayapuri
eyewitnesses. It, therefore, cannot be held, as tried to be
submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, that in
the absence of a test identification parade, the evidence
of an eyewitness identifying the accused would become
inadmissible or totally useless; whether the evidence
deserves any credence or not would always depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case. It is, of
course, true as submitted by learned counsel for the
appellants that the later decisions of this Court in the
case of Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra
[(1999) 8 SCC 428 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1452 : AIR 2000
SC 160] and State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj [(2000) 1 SCC
247 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 147 : AIR 1999 SC 3916] had not
considered the aforesaid three-Judge Bench decisions of
this Court. However, in our view, the ratio of the
aforesaid later decisions of this Court cannot be said to
be running Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain
counter to what is decided by the earlier three-Judge
Bench judgments on the facts and circumstances
examined by the Court while rendering these decisions.
But even assuming as submitted by learned counsel for
the appellants that the evidence of these two injured
witnesses i.e. Bhogilal Ranchhodbhai and Karsanbhai
Vallabhbhai identifying the accused in the Court may be
treated to be of no assistance to the prosecution, the fact
remains that these eyewitnesses were seriously injured
and they could have easily seen the faces of the persons
assaulting them and their appearance and identity
would well remain imprinted in their minds especially
when they were assaulted in broad daylight. They could
not be said to be interested in roping in innocent
persons by shielding the real accused who had
assaulted them." [Emphasis supplied]
47. In Malkhansingh v. State of M.P., (2003) 5
SCC 746, a three-Judge Bench of this Court
considered the evidentiary value of the
identification of the appellant in that case by the
prosecutrix in the Court without holding a TIP
in the course of the investigation. It was argued
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 42 of 56
PS Mayapuri
before the Court that the identification in Court
not preceded by a TIP is of no evidentiary
value. On the other hand, it was argued on
behalf of the prosecution that the substantive
evidence is the evidence of identification in
Court and, therefore, the value to be attached to
such identification depends on facts and
circumstances of each case. The Court
ultimately answered as under:-
"7. It is trite to say that the substantive evidence is the
evidence of identification in court. Apart from the clear
provisions of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, the position
in law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this
Court. The facts, which establish the identity of the
accused persons, are relevant under Section 9 of the
Evidence Act. As a general rule, the substantive
evidence of a witness is the statement made in court.
The evidence of mere identification of the accused
person at the trial for the first time is from its very
nature inherently of a weak character. The purpose of a
prior test identification, therefore, is to test and
strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is
accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to
generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony
of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused
who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier
identification proceedings. This rule of prudence,
however, is subject to exceptions, when, for example,
the court is impressed by a particular witness on whose
testimony it can safely rely, without such or other
corroboration. The identification parades belong to the
stage of investigation, and there is no provision in the
Code of Criminal Procedure which obliges the
investigating agency to hold, or confers a right upon the
accused to claim a test identification parade. They do
not constitute substantive evidence and these parades
are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Failure to hold a test identification
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 43 of 56
PS Mayapuri
parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of
identification in court. The weight to be attached to
such identification should be a matter for the courts of
fact. In appropriate cases it may accept the evidence of
identification even without insisting on corroboration."
[Emphasis supplied]
48. It is well settled that the substantive
evidence is the evidence of identification in
court and the test identification parade provides
corroboration to the identification of the witness
in court, if required. However, what weight
must be attached to the evidence of
identification in court, which is not preceded by
a test identification parade, is a matte Santokh
Singh v. Izhar Hussain r for the courts of fact
to examine.
49. In Prem Singh v. State of Haryana, (2011)
9 SCC 689, a two-Judge Bench of this Court
expressed conflicting opinion, H.S. Bedi, J.
observed in para 19 as under:-
“19. … It must be borne in mind that it is impossible for
an accused to prove by positive evidence that he had
been shown to a witness prior to the identification
parade but if suspicion can be raised by the defence
that this could have happened, no adverse inference can
be drawn against the accused in such a case.”
50. Gyan Sudha Misra, J. while disagreeing
with H.S. Bedi, J. took the view that it is not
open to accused to refuse to participate in the
TIP. The learned Judge observed in para 27 as
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 44 of 56
PS Mayapuri
under:-
“27. In my considered view, it was not open to the
accused to refuse to participate in the TI parade nor
was it a correct legal approach for the prosecution to
accept refusal of the accused to participate in the test
identification parade. If the appellant-accused had
reason to do so, specially on the plea that he had been
shown to the eyewitnesses in advance, the value and
admissibility of the evidence of TI parade could have
been assailed by the defence at the stage of trial in
order to demolish the value of the test identification
parade. But merely on account of the objection of the
accused, he could not have been permitted to decline
from participating in the test identification parade from
which adverse inference can surely be drawn against
him at least in order to corroborate the prosecution
case.” [Emphasis supplied]
51. Ultimately, the matter was heard by a three-
Judge Bench in the case titled Prem Singh v.
State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 88, and the
appeal filed by the convict was allowed.
However, we do not find any discussion in the
said judgment as regards the issue whether the
accused can refuse to participate in the TIP. This
Court on its own looked into the entire evidence
and ultimately acquitted the appellant accused.
52. In Munna v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003)
10 SCC 599, this Court took the view that if an
accused himself refused to participate in the
TIP, then it is not open to him to contend that
the statement of the witnesses made for the first
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 45 of 56
PS Mayapuri
time should not be relied upon. The Court held
as under:-
“10. In a case where an accused himself refuses to
participate in a test identification parade, it is not open
to him to contend that the statement of the eyewitnesses
made for the first time in court, wherein they
specifically point towards him as a person who had
taken part in the commission of the crime, should not be
relied upon. This plea is available provided the
prosecution is itself responsible for not holding a test
identification parade. However, in a case where the
accused himself declines to participate in a test
identification parade, the prosecution has no option but
to proceed in a normal manner like all other cases and
rely upon the testimony of the witnesses, which is
recorded in court during the course of the trial of the
case.” [Emphasis supplied] It is relevant to note
that in the aforesaid decision, the accused in his
statement under Section 313 CrPC had not
stated that he had been shown to the witnesses
at the police station. In the case on hand, it is
the case of the appellant convict that he along
with other co-accused was shown to the
witnesses not only prior to the conduct of the
TIP but even before the identification in the
Court.
53. In Ravindra Laxman Mahadik v. State of
Maharashtra, 1997 CriLJ 3833, in a case
involving Section 395 of the CrPC, it was
opined:-
“10. I find merit in Mr. Mooman’s submission that it
would not be safe to accept the identification evidence
of Manda Sahani. Manda Sahani in her examination-
in-chief stated that on the place of the incident, there
was no light. In her cross-examination (para 6) she
stated that it was dark at the place of the incident but,
slight light was emanating from the building situate on
the shore. The distance between the building and theFIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 46 of 56
PS Mayapuri
place where Manda Sahani and her husband were
looted has not been unfolded in the evidence. The
learned trial Judge has observed that the evidence of
Vinod Sahani is that the incident took place at a
distance of about 100 ft from the Gandhi statue, where
the meeting was held. What he wanted to convey was
that hence there must have been light at the place of
incident. In my view, on the face of the definite
statement of Manda that it was dark as there was only
slight light, and bearing in mind that the incident took
place at 9.30 p.m. in the month of February, 1992, it
would not be safe to conclude that there was sufficient
light on the place of the incident enabling Manda
Sahani to identify the appellant.”
54. In Kanan & Ors. v. State of Kerala, AIR
1979 SC 1127, this Court held:-
“…It is well settled that where a witness Identifies an
accused who is not known to him in the Court for the
first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless
there has been a previous T. I. parade to test his powers
of observations. The Idea of holding T. I. parade under
Section 9 of the Evidence Act is to test the veracity of
the witness on the question of his capability to identify
an unknown person whom the witness may have seen
only once. If no T. I. parade is held then it will be
wholly unsafe to rely on his bare testimony regarding
the identification of an accused for the first time in
Court. …” [Emphasis supplied]
55. In Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v.
State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1, this
Court noticed the importance of TIP and logic
behind it. It is the practice not borne out of
procedure but out of prudence. In this case, this
Court has exhaustively examined the entire case
law on the subject. It was observed:-
“254. Even a TIP before a Magistrate is otherwise hit
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 47 of 56
PS Mayapuri
by Section 162 of the Code. Therefore to say that a
photo identification is hit by Section 162 is wrong. It is
not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only by virtue
of Section 9 of the Evidence Act that the same i.e. the
act of identification becomes admissible in court. The
logic behind TIP, which will include photo identification
lies in the fact that it is only an aid to investigation,
where an accused is not known to the witnesses, the IO
conducts a TIP to ensure that he has got the right
person as an accused. The practice is not borne out of
procedure, but out of prudence. At best it can be
brought under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, as
evidence of conduct of a witness in photo identifying the
accused in the presence of an IO or the Magistrate,
during the course of an investigation.”
56. This Court has further referred to its earlier
decisions which state:-
“256. The law as it stands today is set out in the
following decisions of this Court which are reproduced
as hereinunder:
Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P. [(2005) 9
SCC 631 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1269] : (SCC pp. 642-45,
paras 16-17 & 19) “16. As was observed by this Court
in Matru v. State of U.P. [(1971) 2 SCC 75 : 1971 SCC
(Cri) 391] identification tests do not constitute
substantive evidence. They are primarily meant for the
purpose of helping the investigating agency with an
assurance that their progress with the investigation into
the offence is proceeding on the right lines. The
identification can only be used as corroborative of the
statement in court.
(See Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain [(1973) 2 SCC
406 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 828]) The necessity for holding an
identification parade can arise only when the accused
are not previously known to the witnesses. The whole
idea of a test identification parade is that witnesses who
claim to have seen the culprits at the time of occurrence
are to identify them from the midst of other persons
without any aid or any other source. The test is done to
check upon their veracity. In other words, the main
object of holding an identification parade, during the
investigation stage, is to test the memory of the
witnesses based upon first impression and also to enable
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 48 of 56
PS Mayapuri
the prosecution to decide whether all or any of them
could be cited as eyewitnesses of the crime. The
identification proceedings are in the nature of tests and
significantly, therefore, there is no provision for it in the
Code and the Evidence Act. It is desirable that a test
identification parade should be conducted as soon as
after the arrest of the accused. This becomes necessary
to eliminate the possibility of the accused being shown
to the witnesses prior to the test identification parade.
This is a very common plea of the accused and,
therefore, the prosecution has to be cautious to ensure
that there is no scope for making such an allegation. If,
however, circumstances are beyond control and there is
some delay, it cannot be said to be fatal to the
prosecution.
17. It is trite to say that the substantive evidence is the
evidence of identification in court. Apart from the clear
provisions of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, the position
in law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this
Court. The facts, which establish the identity of the
accused persons, are relevant under Section 9 of the
Evidence Act. As a general rule, the substantive
evidence of a witness is the statement made in court.
The evidence of mere identification of the accused
person at the trial for the first time is from its very
nature inherently of a weak character. The purpose of a
prior test identification, therefore, is to test and
strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is,
accordingly, considered a safe rule of prudence to
generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony
of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused
who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier
identification proceedings. This rule of prudence,
however, is subject to exceptions, when, for example,
the court is impressed by a particular witness on whose
testimony it can safely rely, without such or other
corroboration. The identification parades belong to the
stage of investigation, and there is no provision in the
Code which obliges the investigating agency to hold or
confers a right upon the accused to claim a test
identification parade. They do not constitute substantive
evidence and these parades are essentially governed by
Section 162 of the Code. Failure to hold a test
identification parade would not make inadmissible the
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 49 of 56
PS Mayapuri
evidence of identification in court. The weight to be
attached to such identification should be a matter for the
courts of fact. In appropriate cases it may accept the
evidence of identification even without insisting on
corroboration. (See Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Admn. [AIR
1958 SC 350:1958 Cri LJ 698], Vaikuntam Chandrappa
v. State of A.P. [AIR 1960 SC 1340:1960 Cri LJ 1681],
Budhsen v. State of U.P. [(1970) 2 SCC 128:1970 SCC
(Cri) 343] and Rameshwar Singh v. State of J&K
[(1971) 2 SCC 715 : 1971 Cri LJ 638] ) x x x x
19. In Harbajan Singh v. State of J&K [(1975) 4 SCC
480 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 545] , though a test identification
parade was not held, this Court upheld the conviction on
the basis of the identification in court corroborated by
other circumstantial evidence. In that case it was found
that the appellant and one Gurmukh Singh were absent
at the time of roll call and when they were arrested on
the night of 16-12-1971 their rifles smelt of fresh
gunpowder and that the empty cartridge case which was
found at the scene of offence bore distinctive markings
showing that the bullet which killed the deceased was
fired from the rifle of the appellant. Noticing these
circumstances this Court held : (SCC p. 481, para
4) ‘4. In view of this corroborative evidence we find no
substance in the argument urged on behalf of the
appellant that the investigating officer ought to have
held an identification parade and that the failure of
Munshi Ram to mention the names of the two accused to
the neighbours who came to the scene immediately after
the occurrence shows that his story cannot be true. As
observed by this Court in Jadunath Singh v. State of
U.P. [(1970) 3 SCC 518 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 124] absence
of test identification is not necessarily fatal. The fact
that Munshi Ram did not disclose the names of the two
accused to the villagers only shows that the accused
were not previously known to him and the story that the
accused referred to each other by their respective
names during the course of the incident contains an
element of exaggeration. The case does not rest on the
evidence of Munshi Ram alone and the corroborative
circumstances to which we have referred to above lend
enough assurance to the implication of the appellant.’ “
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 50 of 56
PS Mayapuri
34. Therefore, the law is very clear that TIP proceedings
are not substantive piece of evidence, however, they
provide corroboration to the testimonies of the witnesses.
In our case, PW-2 Shiv Raj Singh Yadav and all the other
PWs have failed to identify the accused Mukesh Kumar in
TIP proceedings. In absence of corroboration the testimony
of PW-2 Shiv Raj Singh Yadav is not sufficient to convict
the accused persons, as the testimony is not clear and
coherent on the aspect of the identity of accused persons
which fails to inspire the confidence of the court. In view
of the aforesaid peculiar backdrop of the case, keeping in
mind the fact that PW-6 Harender Yadav, PW-7 Sumer Pal,
PW-8 Balram have not been able to identify even a single
accused, the present court has to be cautious in
scrutinizing the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses.
There is no explanation from the PW -2 Shiv Raj Singh
Yadav as to why he has not identified the accused in TIP
proceedings. To be made basis of conviction, the testimony
of prosecution’s witness must be irreplaceable and of
pristine quality which is not so presence case. Moreso,
when PW-6 Harender Yadav, PW-7 Sumer Pal, PW-8
Balram have turned hostile. Further, in the light of
judgment as discussed above, the refusal to participate in
the TIP proceedings by accused Jabbar Singh is not a
substantive piece of evidence and conviction can not be
made on the basis of that.
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 51 of 56
PS Mayapuri
35. Coming now to the recovery that is being made
from the accused persons. The recovery witnesses i.e. PW-
10 ASI Murari Lal, PW-13 ASI Mahender Singh, and PW-
15 IO/Ins. R.N. Chaudhary have deposed that case
property i.e. gun without chap was recovered from the
accused Mukesh Kumar Yadav in the presence of PW-
10ASI Murari Lal and mobile phone make Nokia was
recovered from the accused Jabbar Singh in the presence
of PW-13 HC Mahender Yadav at the house of accused
Jabbar Singh at Village Daudganj.
36. It has been argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that
testimonies of said recovery witnesses i.e. PW-10 ASI
Murari Lal, PW-13 ASI Mahender Singh, and PW-15
IO/Insp. R.N. Chaudhary should not be believed in as they
are the police witnesses and no independent witness has
been joined during the alleged recovery.
37. In these circumstances, the possibility of the case
property being planted one can not be ruled out. There is
no other independent public eye witnesses in the present
case. There is nothing incriminating against the accused
persons on record. In the case of the prosecution, that the
gun without chaap was recovered from the accused
Mukesh Kumar Yadav in the presence of PW-10 ASI
Murari Lal and mobile phone make Nokia was recoveredFIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 52 of 56
PS Mayapuri
from tgeh accused Jabbar Singh in the presence of PW-13
HC Mahender Yadav. However, it is beyond
comprehension of the court as to why there is no other
independent public person who has witnessed this incident.
No efforts has been by the police officer to make join
public persons in the investigation. Testimony of even the
recovery witness is doubtful as they have not joined a
single public witness while the recovery was made. The
public witnesses are not joined in the investigation. From
the overall testimony of the witness, it appears that no
effort, what to talk of a sincere/vague effort has been
made to join the public persons in the investigation. All
the witnesses examined by the prosecution are the police
witnesses and other eye witnesses have turned hostile.
Although, it can be said that it was a chance recovery but
the incident had occurred on 24.04.2011 at 11:15 PM and
recovery i.e. mobile phone was made at the house of
accused Jabbar Singh and single barrel gun without chap
was recovered from the room of the accused Mukesh
Kumar Yadav and at that time, no neighbours etc was
present and therefore, it can not be said that no public
person would have been available at the spot and even if
the prosecution has not joined public witnesses it was
incumbent upon the prosecution to at least put forward
plausible reasons for not doing so. The failure on the part
of the police personnels goes to suggest that they were notFIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 53 of 56
PS Mayapuri
interested in joining the public persons in the police
proceedings. Failure on the part of the police officials to
make sincere effort to join public witnesses for the
proceedings when they may be available creates
reasonable doubt in the prosecution story in view of the
following case law. In the case of Anoop Joshi Vs State
1992 (2) C.C. Case 314(HC), Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi has observed as under:
“It is repeatedly laid down by this court that in such cases, it
should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to
join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no
such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that
shops were open and one or two shop keepers could have been
persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being
made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had
declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on
taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not
have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their
legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is
an offence under the IPC.”
38. During the investigation of the case no public
witnesses were joined nor there seems to be any sincere
efforts made in this regard, when it was possible to do so,
which makes the case of the prosecution weak and
suspicion. Since all the witnesses are police personnels
and the necessary safeguards in the investigation have not
been followed by the investigating officer, I am of the
view that chances of false implication cannot be ruled out
at the instance of the police.
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 54 of 56
PS Mayapuri
39. There are a number of cases in which the Hon’ble
Superior Courts have explained as to when it be held that
prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubts entitling accused to benefit of doubt.
40. In Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P., (1990) 3 SCC 190,
the court quoted Lord Denning and Lord Du Paraq, J. on
the concept of the benefit of reasonable doubt in para
which is reproduced below:
30. Lord Denning, J. in Miller v. Minister of Pensions
[(1947) 2 All ER 372, 373 H] while examining the degree
of proof required in criminal cases stated”: That degree is
well settled. It need not reach certainty, but it must carry a
high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
does not mean proof beyond the shadow of a doubt. The
law would fail to protect the community if it admitted
fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the
evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a
remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed
with the sentence of course, it is possible but not in the
least probable, the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
A very valuable discussion on issue of proof beyond
reasonable doubt and entitlement of behalf of doubt to the
accused is found in the judgment authored by O.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. in K. Gopal Reddy v. State of AP
(1979) 1 SCC 355, wherein reiterating the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that the accused is
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 55 of 56
PS Mayapuri
entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt, the court
placing reliance on the afore noticed enunciation by Lord
Denning in Miller (Supra), elaborated the principles thus:
“9 …To entitle an accused person to the benefit of a doubt
arising from the possibility of a duality of views, the possible view in
favour of the accused must be as nearly reasonably probable as that
against him. If the preponderance of probability is all one way, a
bare possibility of another view will not entitle the accused to claim
the benefit of any doubt. It is, therefore, essential that any view of
the evidence in favour of the accused must be reasonable even as
any doubt, the benefit of which an accused person may claim, must
be reasonable. A reasonable doubt, it has been remarked, does not
mean some light, airy, insubstantial doubt that may flit through the
minds of any of us about almost anything at some time or other; it
does not mean a doubt begotten by sympathy out of reluctance to
convict; it means a real doubt, a doubt founded upon reasons”.
41. Applying the aforesaid principle of law of the facts
and circumstances, of the present case, it is apparently
clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case
against the accused persons namely Jabbar Singh and
Mukesh Kumar Yadav for the offences punishable u/s
395/397/412/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act. In view of the
same, as the prosecution established its case, accused
persons namely Jabbar Singh and Mukesh Kumar Yadav
are acquitted for the offences punishable u/s
395/397/412/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act.
42. File be consigned to record room after due
compliance.
Digitally
signed by
AMBIKA
AMBIKA SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.01.18
15:32:18
+0530
Announced in the (AMBIKA SINGH)
Open Court on 15.01.2025 ASJ-02 West THC Delhi
FIR No. 34/2011
State Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors Page No. 56 of 56
PS Mayapuri
[ad_1]
Source link