The Delhi High Court was hearing the appeal of the man who was convicted and sentenced by the trial court in 2003.
The Delhi High Court has upheld a four-year rigorous imprisonment sentence for a man who opened fire on a police patrolling team in 1994, rejecting the argument that the absence of independent public witnesses weakened the prosecution’s case.
Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that members of the public are often reluctant to get involved in police or court proceedings due to the perceived burden of procedural formalities.
“In addition to that, it is a matter of common knowledge that nobody from the general public wants to get entangled in any proceedings which have some relation with the police or the court on account of the perceived harassment due to the procedural formalities. Therefore, in such circumstances, having an independent public witness is neither required nor fatal to the case,” the court said.
The high court was hearing the appeal of one Aditya Kumar, challenging the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court in August 2003.
The high court also mentioned that the policemen are responsible for maintaining law and order and checking crime.
“Patrolling in the jurisdiction of the police station is one of the methods used by the policemen in order to keep a watch on the activities on the street,” the April 15 order read.
1994, trap and trial
The case arose from an incident on August 19, 1994, when a police patrol team in Janakpuri noticed a TSR (three-seated auto-rickshaw) with a defective number plate, which raised suspicion as it was repeatedly moving in the same area.
Acting on this, the police set up a trap to intercept the vehicle. When the police signalled to stop, the TSR sped away, leading to a chase.
During the pursuit, the accused fired a gunshot at the police team from inside the vehicle. The police eventually intercepted the auto rickshaw and apprehended the occupants. From the accused, allegedly, a country-made pistol and a live cartridge were recovered, and a case was registered under Sections 307 IPC (attempt to murder) and Arms Act provisions.
After the trial, the accused was convicted for attempted murder (Section 307 IPC) and other offences, while some co-accused were acquitted with the order of August 14, 2003.
Aggrieved by the same, the accused approached the Delhi High Court with an appeal challenging that conviction and sentence.
No incomplete investigation
The Delhi High Court pointed out that the police are responsible for patrolling, and during one such patrol, the three-seater auto rickshaw (TSR) was spotted displaying a defective number plate.
The high court pointed out that the investigation cannot be said to be incomplete or defective merely because the site plan is not according to the expectations of the accused.
The court further added that in such circumstances, if a trap was laid or the TSR was asked to stop and chase when the accused tried to escape, it was not unusual for the police.
It was further held that the police team had sufficient reasons to become suspicious about the intentions of the occupants of the auto rickshaw.
The court clarified that the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence on the aspect of sentence, pointing out that the antecedents of the man are questionable, as his involvement has been reported in several cases, and all such cases are reportedly of a violent nature.
The high court dismissed the appeal and directed the petitioner to surrender to undergo the remaining sentence.
There is no requirement of law to include the so-called independent public witness, which may be termed as mandatory or indispensable.
What is required is the evidence, and the law does not make any distinction between a public witness and an official witness.
The need for an independent public witness is only felt where something like possession in itself is an offence, but even that is not mandatory, rather a precautionary measure.
Intention, contradictions
Concerning the intention of an accused, the high court said that the intention is an abstract phenomenon and cannot be deciphered or inferred by anyone regarding the mindset of the other.
It was further added that what is going on in the mind of a person is nearly impossible to ascertain or cull out.
However, the court also stated that the intention manifests itself in the act, utterances, omissions, use of a weapon, targeted body, part number of attempts or injuries caused, so on and so forth.
It is the intention which is of paramount importance, and if such an intent, coupled with some overt act in execution of that particular intention, is there, then it is sufficient to hold a person responsible for an offence under Section 307 IPC (murder).
The high court pointed out that variations of contradictions are bound to occur in the narrative on account of the limitations of the human memory and narration skills.
A slip in narration of facts here or there is not unusual, but rather natural.
The court emphasised that what is important is that the soul of the narrative has been kept intact.
It was further added that as long as the material aspects remain intact and unalloyed, the discrepancies or variations do not affect the core issue.
Arguments
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Lalit Kumar argued that no reason has been assigned as to why a trap was put in place without any information, secret otherwise, with the policemen about the accused and the other occupants of the TSR.
He added that some or the other offences were being contemplated by them.
It was further emphasised that in such circumstances, the case is nothing but a high-handed approach on the part of the policemen who have falsely implicated the accused in the instant case.
On the contrary, additional public prosecutor Satinder Singh Bawa supported the prosecution case and the findings of the trial court.( _IE_)
