REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ...

1 Of 2020 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL OF 2021(Arising out of (Crl.) of 2020)PARVEEN @ SONU ..Appellant State of Haryana ..Respondent J U D G M E N TR. SUBHASH REDDY, Appeal is directed against the judgment dated17th March, 2020 passed in CRA-D of 2010 by theHigh COURT of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby,the High COURT has dismissed the Appeal filed by theappellant / accused and upheld the conviction and orderof sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,Rewari.

2 Stated, the facts of the case, as calledout from the case of the prosecution, are as , the police party was escorting fouraccused namely Nadeem, Naushad, Ravi & Sunil from of 2020 Central Jail, Jaipur and they were to be produced in theCourt of CJM, Bhiwani. They reached Railway StationRewari, in the morning at 04:30 hrs. They then boardedthe train for Bhiwani. When the train reached at RailwayStation Nangal Pathani, four young boys entered theircompartment and attacked the police party in order torescue the accused, who were in police custody and wereto be produced in the COURT of CJM, Bhiwani.

3 Theaccused, who were in custody, also tried to escape. Theyeven tried to snatch the official carbine. It is allegedthat one of the accused fired upon Head Constable ArjunSingh. In the complaint, it was stated that the policeoverpowered one person, who had thrown chilly powder intheir eyes and the remaining three accused succeeded infleeing. The apprehended accused disclosed his name andidentity of other assailants. Injured Head ConstableArjun Singh was shifted to hospital, who succumbed tofire arm injuries subsequently. After completinginvestigation, all the accused were prosecuted for theoffences punishable under Sections 224, 225, 332, 353,392, 307, 302, 120-B of the IPC and Section 25/54/59 ofthe Arms Act.

4 Prove the guilt of the accused, prosecutionexamined as many as 23 witnesses in support of its statements of the accused were also recorded of 2020 Section 313 of the As they have pleaded thatthey were innocent and they have been falselyimplicated, they were tried for the aforesaid offencesin the COURT of Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, inSessions Case of 2009. The learned AdditionalSessions Judge by judgment dated , held allthe accused guilty for commission of offences punishableunder Sections 224, 225, 332, 353, 302 r/w Section 120-Bof the Indian Penal Code.

5 The accused Amarjit Singh andSurender Singh @ Dhattu were further held guilty forcommission of offence punishable under Section 25 of theArms Act. By order dated on the quantum ofsentence, they were sentenced to life imprisonment alongwith fine of ,000/- each for the offences underSection 302 r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,apart from conviction for other offences, as referredabove. The sentence for various offences was ordered torun by the judgment of conviction andsentence imposed by the Sessions COURT , the appellantherein, and four other accused have preferred separateappeals before the High COURT of Punjab and Haryana atChandigarh.

6 All the appeals were dismissed by commonjudgment dated , confirming the conviction of 2020sentence imposed by the Sessions COURT . Hence 3rd Accused Parveen @ Sonu is appellant in thepresent Appeal. We were informed that no appeals werepreferred by other accused in the common judgment of theHigh have heard Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Counselappearing for the Appellant and Ms. Bansuri Swaraj,learned appearing for the respondent State ofHaryana and carefully perused the material available onrecord. this Appeal, it is contended by learned Counselfor the appellant that though there was no concreteproof to establish the participation of the appellant inthe alleged crime, the Trial COURT as well as the HighCourt believed the prosecution story in absence of anysupporting evidence and convicted him.

7 It is submittedthat except the alleged confessional statements of co accused, there was no other acceptable evidence toconnect the appellant herein to the crime. It issubmitted that as per the case of prosecution, apartfrom the police party who were escorting accused in thetrain, there were about 50 60 passengers. No independentwitness was examined. Out of the four young boys of 2020boarded the train, only one was having a country madepistol and fired. There was no TIP (Test IdentificationParade) conducted. The accused, who was apprehended asper the prosecution, was only Vinod and all the otherthree persons fled away.

8 But the other person who isstated to be identified, was Amarjit who had fired ashot upon Arjun Singh, Head Constable. It is submittedthat though there was absolutely no evidence to connectthe appellant/accused, the Trial COURT has convicted theappellant in absence of any acceptable evidence to provethe guilt of the appellant. It is submitted that eventhe High COURT , except recording the depositions of allthe witnesses, has not considered any of the groundsurged, and dismissed the Appeal. In support of the caseof the appellant, learned Counsel has relied on thejudgment of this COURT in the case of Indra Dalal Of Haryana1 and the judgment of this COURT in thecase of Uppa alias Manjunatha v.

9 State of the other hand, learned appearing forthe respondent State supported the view taken by theCourts below. She submitted that there was sufficientmaterial and evidence on record which clearlyestablishes the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonabledoubt. It is submitted that there was credible evidence1(2015) 11 SCC 312(2013) 14 SCC of 2020available on record to believe that appellant was aparty to the accused group, who conspired together torescue the other four accused, who were being taken bythe police party to produce before the COURT .

10 LearnedCounsel in support of her argument to prove the case ofthe prosecution of CRIMINAL conspiracy, has relied onthe judgment of this COURT in the case of FirozuddinBasheeruddin and Others v. State of Kerala3. Further, onthe aspect of confessional statements made by theco-accused, has relied on the judgment of this COURT inthe case of Raju Manjhi v. State of heard the learned counsels on either side,We have given our thoughtful consideration to the factsand circumstances of the case and the material placed onrecord. We have also perused depositions of variouswitnesses which are placed on record.