Parveen @ Sonu vs The State Of Haryana

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1571 OF 2021 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020)

PARVEEN @ SONU ...Appellant

vs.

The State of Haryana ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment dated

17th March, 2020 passed in CRA-D No.232 of 2010 by the

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby,

the High Court has dismissed the Appeal filed by the

appellant / accused and upheld the conviction and order

of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Rewari.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as called

Signature Not Verified out from the case of the prosecution, are as under. Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2021.12.07 16:18:33 IST On 14.03.2009, the police party was escorting four Reason:

accused namely Nadeem, Naushad, Ravi & Sunil from the

1 Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020

Central Jail, Jaipur and they were to be produced in the

Court of CJM, Bhiwani. They reached Railway Station

Rewari, in the morning at 04:30 hrs. They then boarded

the train for Bhiwani. When the train reached at Railway

Station Nangal Pathani, four young boys entered their

compartment and attacked the police party in order to

rescue the accused, who were in police custody and were

to be produced in the Court of CJM, Bhiwani. The

accused, who were in custody, also tried to escape. They

even tried to snatch the official carbine. It is alleged

that one of the accused fired upon Head Constable Arjun

Singh. In the complaint, it was stated that the police

overpowered one person, who had thrown chilly powder in

their eyes and the remaining three accused succeeded in

fleeing. The apprehended accused disclosed his name and

identity of other assailants. Injured Head Constable

Arjun Singh was shifted to hospital, who succumbed to

fire arm injuries subsequently. After completing

investigation, all the accused were prosecuted for the

offences punishable under Sections 224, 225, 332, 353,

392, 307, 302, 120-B of the IPC and Section 25/54/59 of

the Arms Act.

4. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution

examined as many as 23 witnesses in support of its case.

The statements of the accused were also recorded under

2 Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. As they have pleaded that

they were innocent and they have been falsely

implicated, they were tried for the aforesaid offences

in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, in

Sessions Case No.32 of 2009. The learned Additional

Sessions Judge by judgment dated 14.01.2010, held all

the accused guilty for commission of offences punishable

under Sections 224, 225, 332, 353, 302 r/w Section 120-B

of the Indian Penal Code. The accused Amarjit Singh and

Surender Singh @ Dhattu were further held guilty for

commission of offence punishable under Section 25 of the

Arms Act. By order dated 18.01.2010 on the quantum of

sentence, they were sentenced to life imprisonment along

with fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offences under

Section 302 r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,

apart from conviction for other offences, as referred

above. The sentence for various offences was ordered to

run concurrently.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and

sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, the appellant

herein, and four other accused have preferred separate

appeals before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh. All the appeals were dismissed by common

judgment dated 17.03.2020, confirming the conviction and

3 Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020

sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. Hence this

Appeal.

6. The 3rd Accused Parveen @ Sonu is appellant in the

present Appeal. We were informed that no appeals were

preferred by other accused in the common judgment of the

High Court.

7. We have heard Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Counsel

appearing for the Appellant and Ms. Bansuri Swaraj,

learned Addl.AG appearing for the respondent – State of

Haryana and carefully perused the material available on

record.

8. In this Appeal, it is contended by learned Counsel

for the appellant that though there was no concrete

proof to establish the participation of the appellant in

the alleged crime, the Trial Court as well as the High

Court believed the prosecution story in absence of any

supporting evidence and convicted him. It is submitted

that except the alleged confessional statements of co–

accused, there was no other acceptable evidence to

connect the appellant herein to the crime. It is

submitted that as per the case of prosecution, apart

from the police party who were escorting accused in the

train, there were about 50–60 passengers. No independent

witness was examined. Out of the four young boys who

4 Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020

boarded the train, only one was having a country made

pistol and fired. There was no TIP (Test Identification

Parade) conducted. The accused, who was apprehended as

per the prosecution, was only Vinod and all the other

three persons fled away. But the other person who is

stated to be identified, was Amarjit who had fired a

shot upon Arjun Singh, Head Constable. It is submitted

that though there was absolutely no evidence to connect

the appellant/accused, the Trial Court has convicted the

appellant in absence of any acceptable evidence to prove

the guilt of the appellant. It is submitted that even

the High Court, except recording the depositions of all

the witnesses, has not considered any of the grounds

urged, and dismissed the Appeal. In support of the case

of the appellant, learned Counsel has relied on the

judgment of this Court in the case of Indra Dalal v.

State Of Haryana1 and the judgment of this Court in the

case of Uppa alias Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka2.

9. On the other hand, learned Addl.AG appearing for

the respondent – State supported the view taken by the

Courts below. She submitted that there was sufficient

material and evidence on record which clearly

establishes the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable

doubt. It is submitted that there was credible evidence 1 (2015) 11 SCC 31 2 (2013) 14 SCC 729

5 Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020

available on record to believe that appellant was a

party to the accused group, who conspired together to

rescue the other four accused, who were being taken by

the police party to produce before the Court. Learned

Counsel in support of her argument to prove the case of

the prosecution of criminal conspiracy, has relied on

the judgment of this Court in the case of Firozuddin

Basheeruddin and Others v. State of Kerala3. Further, on

the aspect of confessional statements made by the

co-accused, has relied on the judgment of this Court in

the case of Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar4.

10. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts

and circumstances of the case and the material placed on

record. We have also perused depositions of various

witnesses which are placed on record. To prove the case,

the prosecution has examined as many as 23 witnesses.

PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-7 and PW-21 are doctors. PW-6 is

Sub-Inspector of Police and he was on duty on 14.03.2009

at Police Station GRP Rewari. In the statement, he has

referred to the disclosure statement of the other

accused by name Vinod, which was exhibitted as Ex.PS. In

his cross-examination, he has deposed that several

persons were assembled at the place of occurrence, but 3 (2001) 7 SCC 596 4 (2019) 12 SCC 784

6 Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020

none of them was ready to join or associate with

investigation. PW-16 is ASI Ajit Singh, who has deposed

that accused Sunil @ Bachhu made a disclosure statement.

PW-18 is Sub-Inspector Pratap Singh, who has deposed

that on 11.05.2009, stating that he along with other

police officials arrested accused Amarjit @ Dana and

Surender @ Dattu. He referred to the disclosure

statement made by accused Amarjit. PW-20 is Constable

Inder Raj, who is the eye-witness. In his deposition, he

has stated that when the train reached Railway Station,

Nangal Pathani, four boys aged about 20–25 years,

entered their compartment and one of them was carrying a

polythene bag and one other was armed with country made

pistol. He too has deposed that apprehended accused was

Vinod and he clearly stated that he had thrown chilly

powder in their eyes and accused Amarjit, who had fired

a shot upon Arjun Singh, Head Constable. In the cross-

examination, he deposed that there were as many as 50–60

passengers in the compartment. It is to be noticed that

PW-20 Inder Raj has not referred the name of the

appellant / accused i.e. Parveen @ Sonu in his

deposition. PW-22 is another Constable by name Satbir,

who has corroborated the statement of PW-20. He too has

deposed that accused Vinod had thrown chilly powder on

them and other accused by name Amarjit had fired at

7 Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020

Arjun Singh, Head Constable. PW-23 is Sub-Inspector

Randhir Singh, who deposed that on 14.03.2009, he

recorded the statement of Constable Inder Raj.

11. The Trial Court has passed the conviction of the

appellant herein, mainly relying on the medical reports

and depositions of PW-20, PW-22 and PW-23. Even

according to the case of the prosecution, only four

accused have entered the train and one of them who was

identified as Vinod, had thrown chilly powder in their

eyes and other accused Amarjit had fired a shot upon

Arjun Singh, Head Constable. It is also clear from the

cross-examination of PW-20 that there were about 50–60

passengers in the compartment, but no one was examined.

Even PW-22 Constable Satbir, who has corroborated the

Statement of PW-20, disclosed the names of Vinod and

Amarjit Singh only. Except the vague and bald statement

that the appellant herein is a member of alleged

conspiracy, there is no other acceptable evidence on

record to prove conspiracy. For the reasons not known,

in a case of this nature, the investigating agency has

not conducted TIP (Test Identification Parade). Except

the alleged confessional statements of co-accused, there

is no other evidence on record to implicate the

appellant. It is also brought to our notice that the

appellant was prosecuted for snatching away the Bolero

8 Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020

car in Criminal Case No.535 of 2009 in the Court of HCS,

Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhiwani, he was acquitted

of the charge for offences under Sections 392, 216 r/w

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the said

judgment has become final.

12. It is fairly well settled, to prove the charge of

conspiracy, within the ambit of Section 120-B, it is

necessary to establish that there was an agreement

between the parties for doing an unlawful act. At the

same time, it is to be noted that it is difficult to

establish conspiracy by direct evidence at all, but at

the same time, in absence of any evidence to show

meeting of minds between the conspirators for the

intended object of committing an illegal act, it is not

safe to hold a person guilty for offences under Section

120-B of IPC. A few bits here and a few bits there on

which prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate

for connecting the accused with the commission of crime

of criminal conspiracy. Even the alleged confessional

statements of the co-accused, in absence of other

acceptable corroborative evidence, is not safe to

convict the accused. In the case of Indra Dalal v. State

Of Haryana1, this Court has considered the conviction

based only on confessional statement and recovery of

vehicle used in the crime. In the said case, while

9 Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020

setting aside the conviction, this Court has held in

paragraphs 16 & 17 as under:

“16. The philosophy behind the aforesaid provision is acceptance of a harsh reality that confessions are extorted by the police officers by practising oppression and torture or even inducement and, therefore, they are unworthy of any credence. The provision absolutely excludes from evidence against the accused a confession made by him to a police officer. This provision applies even to those confessions which are made to a police officer who may not otherwise be acting as such. If he is a police officer and confession was made in his presence, in whatever capacity, the same becomes inadmissible in evidence. This is the substantive rule of law enshrined under this provision and this strict rule has been reiterated countlessly by this Court as well as the High Courts.

17. The word “confession” has nowhere been defined. However, the courts have resorted to the dictionary meaning and explained that incriminating statements by the accused to the police suggesting the inference of the commission of the crime would amount to confession and, therefore, inadmissible under this provision. It is also defined to mean a direct acknowledgment of guilt and not the admission of any incriminating fact, however grave or conclusive. Section 26 of the Evidence Act makes all those confessions inadmissible when they are made by any person, whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless such a confession is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Therefore, when a person is in police custody, the confession made by him even to a third person, that is, other than a police officer, shall also become inadmissible.

10 Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020

13. Further, in the case of Uppa alias Manjunatha v.

State of Karnataka2, this Court has held that when an

accused is held guilty and sentenced to imprisonment,

confirmation of sentence by the High Court is

justifiable only in the event of giving sound reasons

upon analysis of material evidence. In the case on hand,

a perusal of the judgment of the High Court reveals that

except referring to depositions, High Court has not

considered the evidence at all and confirmed the

conviction and sentence as ordered by the Trial Court. The judgments relied on by the learned Addl.AG in the

case of Firozuddin Basheeruddin and Others v. State of

Kerala3 and in the case of Raju Manjhi v. State of

Bihar4, are not helpful to support the case of

prosecution, having regard to the facts of the case and

evidence on record.

14. On close scrutiny of evidence on record, we are of

the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove

its case, that the appellant herein, has conspired with

other accused for the offences for which he was charged.

Except the alleged confessional statements of the co-

accused and in absence of any other corroborative

evidence, it is not safe to maintain the conviction and

sentence imposed upon the Appellant. The findings

recorded by the Trial Court in convicting the appellant

11 Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020

mainly on the ground that he was one of the conspirators

for the crime in question, is erroneous and illegal. The

High Court has not considered the evidence on record in

proper perspective and erroneously confirmed the

conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.

15. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed.

Conviction recorded and sentence imposed on the

appellant is, hereby, set aside and he is acquitted of

the charges levelled against him. The appellant be

released forthwith, unless his custody is required in

connection with any other case.

....................J. [R. SUBHASH REDDY]

....................J. [HRISHIKESH ROY] New Delhi, December 07, 2021.

12