JASBIR SINGH @ JAVRI @ JABBAR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2015] 4 S.C.R. 542 · Decided: 06-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 4 S.C.R. 542 
A 
JASBIR SINGH @ JAVRI @ JABBAR SINGH 
B 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No.554 of 2015) 
APRIL 06, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 399 and 402 rlw. s. 25 of Arms 
C Act - Conviction under, by Courts below - On appeal, held: 
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the charges 
against the accused not proved beyond reasonable doubt 
- Hence, the accused is acquitted, by giving him benefit 
0 
of doubt -Arms Act, 1959 - s.25. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. None of the charges in the present case, 
against the appellant, can be said to have been 
E proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is a fit case where 
the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the reasonable 
doubt, and deserves to be acquitted. [Paras 11, 13] 
[548-C; 549-H; 550-A] 
F 
2. The High Court has erred in law in not taking 
note of the following facts apparent from the ~widence 
on record: (i) In a day light incident within the limits 
of Police Station, there is no public or any other 
independent witness of the arrest of the appellant 
G along with other accused from the place of incident 
nor that of the alleged recovery of fire arm said to have 
been made from two of them. (It is not a case where 
arrest or recovery has been made in the presence of 
H 
542 
JASBIR SINGH @ JAVRI @ JABBAR SINGH v. STATE 543 
OF HARYANA 
any Gazetted Officer.) (ii) Complainant (PW-6) has A 
himself investigated the crime, as such, the credibility 
of the investigation is also doubtful in t!'te present 
case, particularly, for the reason that except the police 
constables, who are subordinate to him, there is no 
other witness to the incident. (iii) It is not natural that B 
the six accused, four of whom were armed with deadly 
weapons, neither offered any resistance nor caused 
any injury to any of the police personnel before they 
are apprehended by the police. (iv) It is strange that all 
the accused were wearing blue shirts, as if there was C 
a uniform provided to them. (v) It is hard to believe that 
the appellant and three others did not try to run away 
as at the time of the noon they must have easily 
noticed from a considerable distance that some 0 
policemen are coming towards them. (It is not the case 
of the prosecution that police personnel were not in 
uniform.) [Para 12) (548-G-H; 549-A-F] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
Appeal No. 554 of 2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2014 of the 
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRA No. 
S-1389-SB of 2004. 
D. S. Bali, Shalu Sharma, Rajesh Sharma, Nitin Kumar 
for the Appellant. 
Devender Kr. Saini, AAG, Sanjay Kumar Visen for the 
E 
F 
Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed 
against judgment and order dated 8.8.2014, passed by 
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, whereby Criminal H 
544 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 
A Appeal No. S-1389-SB has been dismissed, and conviction 
of accused (appellant) Jasbir Singh @ Javri @ Jabbar 
Singh, recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast 
Trek Court, Kamal, has been affirmed in respect of 
offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the 
B Indian Penal Code (IPC) and one punishable under Section 
25 of Arms Act. However, the sentence awarded by the trial 
court to the appellant under Section 399 IPC has been 
reduced to the period of imprisonment for five years. 
' 
C 
2. Heard learned counsel for the partie' and perused 
the papers on record. 
3 Prosecution story in brief is that on 26.6.2003, PW-6 
Sube Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, Kamal, along with 
o PW-4 Head Constable Ram Singh, PW-1 Constable 
Satish Kumar, and four others, namely, Head Constable Azad 
Singh, Constable Arvind, Constable Mahender Singh and 
Constable Rattan Singh (none of last four examined), was 
on duty in connection with detection of some crime. He 
E received a secret information that appellant Jasbir Singh 
@ Javri @ Jabbar Singh, and co-accused Shamsher Singh, 
Jagpal, Rattan Singh, Raju and Sumer Singh, armed with 
deadly weapons, were planning to commit dacoity in a 
liquor shop on Meerut Road, Kamal. 
On receiving 
F the information, Assistant Sub Inspector Sube Singh and 
other police officials proceeded towards electric pole, 
Ganda Nala, Sector 5, Kamal. It was 1.20 p.m. (noon) when 
the police party observed that all the accused were in 
blue shirts. 
The police team further w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.