KARAMJIT SINGH versus STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 25 · Decided: 26-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
~ 
~ 
I 
·1 
KARAMJIT SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRA T!ON) 
MARCH 26, 2003 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Trial: 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,1987: Sections 3 
~~ 
c 
Charges under TADA Act and Explosive Substances Act-Conviction of 
police constable-Testimony of police witnesses-Reliance upon-Held, the 
presumption that a person acts honestly applies to police personnel as well, 
it is not appropriate to distrust and suspect their testimony without good D 
grounds-In the absence of any material/evidence, it is unreasonable to believe 
that they would falsely implicate their own co/league-Criminal trial-Evidence 
Act, 1872-Explosive Substances Act-Ss. 3 and 4. 
Testimony of police witnesses-Reliance upon-Conviction thereon 
without its corroboration by independent public witnesses-Validity of-Held· E 
Testimony of such witnesses depends upon facts and circumstances of each 
case-No principle of general application could be laid down. 
According to the prosecution, on receipt of information, police raided 
the house of accused-appellant, a police constable, residing in the quarter 
allotted to his father-in-law also a police constable, and recovered 
incriminating articles/explosive material therefrom. A case was registered 
against the accused police constable under the provision of Terrorist and 
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and Explosive Substances Act. The 
Designated Court found him guilty of committing offence under ss. 3 and 
F 
5 of TADA and under ss. 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act and G 
convicted and sentenced him accordingly. Hence the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that testimony of police personnel 
without its corroboration by independent public witness was not sqfficient 
to convict an accused; that since the quarter where incriminating material 
recovered was not in possession of accused, he should not be held liable H 
25 
26 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003) 3 S.C.R. 
A for recovery of incriminating material; and that testimony of one of the 
.__ 
prosecution witnesses completely shatters the case of prosecution. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.lThe fact that the quarter in possession of the appellant 
B had been allotted to PW 7, a police constable is proved by the statement 
of PW 12, Head Constable. PW 7 has deposed that he had given the 
quarter to the appellant and the appellant along with his wife was living 
there for about a month before the occurrence. PW 7 is the father-in-law 
of the appellant and there is absolutely no reason why he would depose 
C falsely to implicate his own son-in-law. It is, therefore, fully established 
hat the appellant was residin~: in the quarter, from where the recovery 
had been made. There is dired testimony of three witnesses, PW 9, PW 
10 and PW 11 that it was the appellant who opened the lock of his 
residential quarter and thereafter he opened the lock of the box, 
wherefrom considerable amount of incriminating articles which could be 
D used for making bombs etc. were recovered. The fact that he was keeping 
the key of the box can lead to the only conclusion that articles found in 
the box were in his possession. The testimony of these three witnesses is 
corroborated by the statement of PW 2, the driver of the vehicle in which 
all of them went to the quarter of the appellant. No doubt he is not a 
witness of the recovery itself as he remained sitting in the vehicle but he 
E does corroborate the testimony of the three witnesses regarding the fact 
that some police personnel including the three witnesses had gone to the 
quarter of the appellant. The testimony of PW 3 establishes the fact that 
the recovered articles were deposited as case property at Police Station 
by PW 11. The testimony of these witnesses conclusively establishes the 
F charge levelled against the appellant that he was keeping in his possession 
considerable amount of explosives and other materials which could be used 
for making a bomb. 131-F-H; 3:!-A-CI 
1.2. The defence witness beilongs to the native village of the appellant 
and has merely deposed about the good character of the appellant. His 
G testimony has no bearing on the factum of recovery made from the 
possession of the appellant and is thus of no assistance to him. The evidence 
on record establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond any shadow of 
doubt. 132-DI 
1.3. The testimony of police personnel should be treated i

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.