http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 11 of 2000

PETITIONER:

Karamjit Singh

RESPONDENT:

State (Delhi Administration)

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/03/2003

BENCH:

S. Rajendra Babu & G.P. Mathur

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

G.P. Mathur, J.

Karamjit Singh has preferred this appeal against the judgment and

order dated 2.2.1996 of the Designated Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case

No.140 of 1991, by which he was convicted under Sections 3 and 4 of the

Explosive Substances Act and was sentenced to 5 years R.I. thereunder and

was further convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive

Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the TADA") and was

sentenced to 5 years R.I. and 5 years and six months R.I. respectively under

the two counts. The sentences awarded to him were ordered to run

concurrently.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant Karamjit

Singh at the relevant time was working as driver in Delhi Police and was

residing with his wife in quarter no.B-12 in Police Station Mehrauli, which

had been allotted to his father-in-law, Didar Singh, who was also a

constable. A secret information was received that the appellant was

involved in terrorist activities and that he was allowing the terrorists to stay

in his residence and had also in his possession some explosive material. It

was accordingly decided to conduct a search of his residential premises and

in that connection a raiding party was organised by ACP, Shakti Singh of the

CSS Branch, Operation Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. Shakti Singh, ACP

along with number of police personnel including R.D. Pandey, Inspector,

Pratap Singh, Inspector and Rajinder Prasad, Sub-inspector proceeded from

their office at Lodhi Colony for appellant's quarter in P.S. Mehrauli at 8.30

a.m. on 8.11.1990. The quarter was locked from outside and, therefore,

they kept a secret watch. At about 11.30 a.m., the appellant along with his

wife arrived there on a scooter. The raiding party disclosed their identity to

the appellant, who tried to run away but he was overpowered and was asked

to open the door of the house. The appellant then opened the lock and the

members of the raiding party entered the same. A steel box was found kept

in the north side of the bedroom, which was also locked. The box was

opened by the appellant and a number of incriminating articles like

explosive material in two separate containers weighing 1.60 kg. and 1.80

kg., four detonators fitted with electric wires, time piece fitted with electrical

wires in the shape of a fixed timer, one pocket watch having electrical wires

which was also a timer, one ampere meter tester, one pair of magnets,

soldering wire, splinters weighing 1.150 kgs., nut and bolts, wrenches and

screw drivers, etc. were found stored therein. The recovered articles were

sealed on the spot. Thereafter a Rukka was sent to the Police Station,

Mehrauli through PW2 Naresh and on the basis thereof PW1 Shashi Bala,

who was on duty, registered a case against the appellant being FIR No.298

of 1990 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and

Sections 3, 4 and 5 of TADA. The appellant was produced in Court on the

next day, where he was taken on police remand. The appellant also give a

disclosure statement. After investigation of the case, charge sheet was

submitted against the appellant on the basis of which cognizance was taken

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5

by the Designated Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge

(Designated Court No.1), New Delhi, framed charges under Sections 4 and 5

of the Explosive Substances Act and Sections 3 and 5 of TADA on

12.5.1993. The prosecution in support of its case examined 14 witnesses

and filed some documentary evidence. The appellant in his statement under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. He stated that the quarter

was not in his possession and he was not residing there nor any

incriminating articles were recovered from his possession. He also denied

to have made any disclosure statement. He further submitted that he had no

association with any terrorist and had a clean service record while working

as a driver with Delhi Police. He examined one witness, namely, DW1,

Mukhtiar Singh in his defence. The Designated Court, after appraisal of

evidence on record, believed the case of the prosecution and convicted and

sentenced the appellant as mentioned earlier.

Before examining the contentions raised by Shri K.B. Sinha, learned

senior counsel for the appellant, it will be proper to briefly notice the

evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution to sustain the charge

levelled against the appellant. PW 11 Pratap Singh has deposed that he was

posted as Inspector in CSS Branch, Operation Cell, Lodhi Colony, New

Delhi, on 8.11.1990. On that day, a raid was organised by ACP, Shakti

Singh, at the residence of the appellant Karamjit Singh, who was living in

quarter no.B-12 of P.S. Mehrauli, as a secret information had been received

that he was having explosives in his possession and was helping the

terrorists by allowing them to stay at this residence. At about 8.30 a.m., the

police party headed by ACP, Shakti Singh, started from Lodhi Colony office

and went to Mehrauli. They kept a secret watch at the house of the

appellant, which was locked. At about 11.30 a.m., the appellant came there

along with his wife on a scooter. He was stopped and the raiding party

disclosed their identity on which he tried to run away but he was

overpowered. The appellant was asked to open the lock of his house, which

he did and thereafter all of them went inside the house and found that a box

was kept in the bedroom which was also locked. On the asking of ACP

Shakti Singh, the appellant opened the lock of the box and it was found that

a number of articles like explosives, detonators fitted with electric wires,

time piece, pocket watch, wrenches, wires, soldering material, splinters, etc.,

details of have been given earlier were found there. The articles were sealed

on the spot and a site plan was prepared. The witness has further deposed

that thereafter he prepared a Rukka and after signing the same sent it to P.S.

Mehrauli through PW2 Naresh, Constable, for registration of the case. The

appellant also made disclosure statements on 9.11.1990 and 10.11.1990.

After completing investigation, he sent papers for obtaining sanction from

the concerned officers and after the same had been granted charge sheet was

submitted against the appellant in Court. PW9 R.D. Pandey, Inspector,

and PW10 Rajinder Prasad, Sub-Inspector were also posed in CSS Branch,

Operation Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi on 8.11.1990 and they were

members of the raiding party headed by ACP Shakti Singh and they had also

gone to the residence of the appellant. These two persons have given

exactly similar statements as that of PW11 Pratap Singh and have deposed

about the opening of the lock of the house and the opening of the lock of the

box by the appellant and also recovery of the incriminating articles from

there.

PW12 Ashok Kumar, Head Constable, Quarter Allotment Cell, Police

Headquarters, New Delhi, produced before the Court the original file

regarding allotment of quarter no.B-12, Type II, P.S. Mehrauli to Constable

Didar Singh. PW7 Didar Singh has deposed that he had married his

daughter Harinder Jeet Kaur to the appellant on 1.9.1990 and at that time he

was posted in PCR Anand Parbat. The appellant at the time of his marriage

was living in village Naharpur near Rohini and he was having only one

room. Since his daughter was facing difficulty there, he asked the appellant

to live in the quarter allotted to him (quarter no. B-12, PS Mehrauli) and

accordingly the appellant started living there about a month prior to the date

on which search of his quarter was made. PW2 Naresh, Constable driver

has deposed that he had driven the Gypsy on 8.11.1990 on which the raiding

party headed by ACP Shakti Singh had proceeded from Lodhi Colony to

P.S. Mehrauli. PW 11 Pratap Singh, Inspector, had given him the Rukka for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5

being handed over to the Duty Officer at P.S. Mehrauli, which he did. The

Duty Officer after registering the case gave him a copy of the FIR which he

handed over to Pratap Singh. PW1 Shashi Bala has deposed that she was

Duty Officer at P.S. Mehrauli on 8.11.1990 and on the basis of the Rukka

brought by Naresh, Constable, at 1.30 p.m., she registered a case against the

appellant under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and

Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the TADA as FIR no.298 of 1990. PW3 Babu Khan,

Head Constable deposed that PW11 Pratap Singh, Inspector deposited the

case property at P.S. Mehrauli on 8.11.1990 as per the recovery memo and

filed the photocopy of the entry made regarding the same in the register.

PW4 Om Prakash Khatri, Inspector, Operation Cell, deposed that the

appellant made a disclosure statement on 9.11.1990 that he could get

recovery of arms, ammunitions and explosives made from some places in

Delhi and Punjab. Similar statements about disclosure statement having

been made by the appellant have been given by PW5 Kartar Singh, S.I. of

Operation Cell. He also deposed that the appellant had further stated that he

could get Jarnail Singh @ Jilla who was Lt. General of BTFK, Sukhvinder

Singh Chadha, Vikram Jit Singh Bittu and some others arrested. PW13,

Sukhdev Singh, who was Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Cell,

proved the sanction accorded by him on 12.9.1991 and PW14 M.V. Siddiqui

Deputy Secretary, Home also proved the sanction given by him. Both the

witnesses have stated that the sanction was granted by them after perusal of

the documents of the case.

The appellant examined one witness in his defence, namely, DW1,

Mukhtiar Singh, who is Surpanch of village Guddar Tadi, District

Ferozepur. He deposed that Karamjit Singh belongs to his village and he

knew him and also his family members for the last 40 years. The appellant

had clean antecedents and he was never involved in any criminal case.

We have given above the gist of the evidence which is available on

the record. The fact that quarter no.B-12 in P.S. Mehrauli had been allotted

to PW7 Didar Singh is proved by the statement of PW12 Ashok Kumar,

Head Constable. Didar Singh has deposed that he had given the said quarter

to the appellant and the appellant along with his wife was living there for

about a month before the occurrence. It is important to note that Didar

Singh is the father-in-law of the appellant and there is absolutely no reason

why he would depose falsely to implicate his own son-in-law. It is,

therefore, fully established that the appellant was residing in quarter no.B-

12, from where the recovery had been made. There is direct testimony of

three witnesses, namely, PW9 R.D. Pandey, PW10 Rajinder Prasad and

PW11 Pratap Singh that it was the appellant who opened the lock of his

residential quarter and thereafter he opened the lock of the box, which was

kept in the bedroom and from the said box considerable amount of

incriminating articles which could be used for making bombs etc. were

recovered. The testimony of these three witnesses is corroborated by the

statement of PW2 Naresh, the driver of the vehicle on which they went from

Operation Cell, Lodhi Colony to the quarter of the appellant in PS Mehrauli.

No doubt he is not a witness of the recovery itself as he remained sitting in

the vehicle but he does corroborate the testimony of the aforesaid three

witnesses regarding the fact that some police personnel including the

aforesaid three witnesses had gone to the quarter of the appellant in the

morning of 8.11.1990. The testimony of PW3 Babu Khan, establishes the

fact that the recovered articles were deposited as case property at Police

Station Mehrauli by PW11 Pratap Singh. The testimony of these witnesses

conclusively establishes the 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. The defence witness

examined by the appellant belongs to a village in District Ferozepur and he

has merely deposed about the good character of the appellant. His

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, therefore, establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond

any shadow of doubt.

Shri Sinha, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has vehemently

urged that all the witnesses of recovery examined by the prosecution are

police personnel and in absence of any public witness, their testimony alone

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5

should not be held sufficient for sustaining the conviction of the appellant.

In our opinion the contention raised is too broadly stated and cannot be

accepted. The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same

manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law

that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot

be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as

much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper

judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. It will

all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no principle of

general application can be laid down. PW11 Pratap Singh has clearly stated

in the opening part of his examination-in-chief that ACP Shakti Singh asked

some public witnesses to accompany them but they showed their

unwillingness. PW10 Rajinder Prasad, SI has given similar statement and

has deposed that despite their best efforts no one from public was willing to

join the raiding party due to the fear of the terrorists. Exactly similar

statement has been given by PW9 R.D. Pandey. We should not forget that

the incident took place in November 1990, when terrorism was at its peak in

Punjab and neighbouring areas. The ground realities cannot be lost sight of

that even in normal circumstances members of public are very reluctant to

accompany a police party which is going to arrest a criminal or is embarking

upon search of some premises. At the time when the terrorism was at its

peak, it is quite natural for members of public to have avoided getting

involved in a police operation for search or arrest of a person having links

with terrorists. It is noteworthy that during the course of the cross-

examination of the witness the defence did not even give any suggestion as

to why they were falsely deposing against the appellant. There is absolutely

no material or evidence on record to show that the prosecution witnesses had

any reason to falsely implicate the appellant who was none else but a

colleague of theirs being a member of the same police force. Therefore,

the contention raised by Shri Sinha that on account of non-examination of a

public witness, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who are police

personnel, should not be relied upon has hardly any substance and cannot be

accepted.

Shri Sinha has next urged that PW5 Kartar Singh, SI of Operation

Cell had admitted in his cross-examination that he had gone to P.S. Mehrauli

in connection with some official work at about 10.00 a.m. on 8.11.1990 and

had seen PW9, PW10 and PW11 and ACP Shakti Singh interrogating the

appellant Karamjit Singh in the room of I.O. and this clearly contradicted the

testimony of the prosecution witnesses that the appellant came at 11.30 a.m.,

opened the lock of the quarter and thereafter the recovery was made.

According to learned counsel, the testimony of this witness completely

shatters the prosecution case that the raiding party kept a watch on the

locked premises and the appellant arrived at the scene only at 11.30 a.m. In

our opinion the learned counsel has tried to make a mountain of a mole hill

from a stray sentence in the cross-examination of the witness. In his

examination-in-chief which was recorded on 21.5.1994 PW5 has not stated

anything regarding the time when he saw the appellant being interrogated.

He was cross-examined on 23.7.1994 i.e. nearly three years and 9 months

after the incident. After such a long gap he may not be remembering the

exact time when he reached the police station. PW11 Pratap Singh has

clearly stated in his cross-examination that SI Kartar Singh had come to the

Police Station in pursuance of a wireless message sent to the Operation Cell

by ACP Shakti Singh and that he came after 3.30 4.00 p.m. Therefore, it

is not at all possible to discard the testimony of the prosecution witnesses

merely on account of a stray sentence appearing in the cross-examination of

PW5.

Shri Sinha has also urged that the quarter was not in exclusive

possession of the appellant and, therefore, it cannot be held that the

incriminating articles were recovered from his possession. As mentioned

earlier, PW7 Didar Singh who is none else but the father-in-law of the

appellant, has deposed that he had given the quarter to the appellant and he

was residing therein for about a month prior to the occurrence. The

testimony of PW9, PW10 and PW11 clearly establishes that it was the

appellant who had opened the lock which was put on the front door of the

quarter and he had also opened the lock which was put on the box from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5

where the incriminating articles had been recovered. The box having been

found in the quarter which was in possession of the appellant and the fact

that he was keeping the key of the lock of the box can lead to the only

conclusion that articles found in the box were in his possession.

Having given our careful consideration to the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the opinion that the

prosecution has established its case against the appellant beyond any shadow

of doubt and there is absolutely no ground which may warrant interference

with the impugned judgment and order of the Designated Court. The appeal

is accordingly dismissed.