Holding

Police testimony, when corroborated by the surrounding facts, is sufficient for conviction and the presumption of honesty applies to police witnesses, so the conviction stands.

Summary

Karamjit Singh, a Delhi police constable, was residing in a police quarter allotted to his father‑in‑law when police, acting on secret information, raided the premises and recovered explosives and related materials from a locked box that Singh opened. He was convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment. On appeal, Singh contended that the prosecution relied solely on police witnesses without any independent public corroboration and that the quarter was not his exclusive possession, rendering the recovery insufficient to prove possession. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of police personnel is admissible and can be sufficient where the facts support it, rejecting any general rule that police testimony must be corroborated by independent witnesses. The Court affirmed the presumption of honesty applicable to police witnesses and found the evidence established Singh's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

Issues considered

The adequacy of police testimony without corroboration by independent public witnesses for conviction under TADA and the Explosive Substances Act.
Whether the appellant's lack of exclusive possession of the quarter negates inference that the recovered articles were in his possession.
Whether the presumption of honesty applies to police personnel in criminal trials.

Legislation cited

Explosive Substances Act, 1908s. 3, s. 4
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987s. 3, s. 5

Subjects

TADAExplosive Substances Actpolice testimonycorroborationpresumption of honestyterrorismevidenceconviction

Judgment

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
I
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 F
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
·1 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.
1-
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 in the same
H manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no pril:ciple of law
KARAMJJT SINGH v. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) 27
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. Besides, PWs B
have deposed that despite their best efforts no one from the public was
willing to join the raiding party due to fear of terrorists. 132-F, G]

1.4. When the incident took place 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 C
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 the public to have
avoided getting involved in a police operation for search or arrest of a
person having links with terrorists. There is absolutely no material or
evidence on record to show that the prosecution witnesses had any reason D
to falsely implicate the appellant who was none else but a colleague of
theirs being a member of the same police force. (32-H; 33-A-C]

1.5. In his examination-in-chief PW 5 has not stated anything
regarding the time at which he saw the appellant being interrogated. He
was cross-examined nearly three years and nine m"onths after the incident. E
After such a long gap he may not be remembering the exact time when
he reached the police station. 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 PW 5. [33-F, G]
F
1.6The 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 judgment and order of the Designated
Court. (34-DI

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. G
1,1 of 2000.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.1.1996/2.2.1996 of the
Designated Court, New Delhi in S.C. No. 140/91 in F.l.R. No. 298of1990,
P.S. Mehroli.
H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A K.B. Sinha Sr. Adv. Shekhar Prit Jham, for the Appellants. -
Ashok Bhan, R.K. Rathore, Satbir Pillania, Attemesh Rein and D.S.
Mahara, for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
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.140of1991, 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
C and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the
TADA") a11d was sentenced to 5 years R.l. and 5 years and six months R.I.
respectively under the two counts. The sentences awarded to him were ordered
to run concurrently.

D The ·case of the prosecution, in brief,· is that the appellant Karamjit
Singh at the relevant time was wo;king as driver in Delhi Police and was
residing with his wife in quart1:r 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
E 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,
F 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 nm away but he was overpowered and was asked to open the
G 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
H fixed timer, one pocket watch having electrical wires which was also a timer,
KARAM.llT SINGH v. STATE(DELHI ADMINISTRATION) [GP MATHUR, J.] 29

- one ampere meter tester, one pair of magnets, soldering wire, splinters weighing A
1.150 kgs., nut and bolts, wrenches and screw drivers, etc. were found stored
therein. The recovered aiticles were sealed on the spot. Thereafter a Rukka
was sent to the Police Station, Mehrauli through PW2 Naresh and on the
basis thereof PW I 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 B
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 by the Designated Court. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge (Designated Court No. I), New Delhi, framed charges under C
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 D
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, DWI,
Mukhtiar Singh in his defence. The Designated Court, after appraisal of
evidence on record, believed the case of the prosecution and convicted and E
sentenced the appellant as mentioned earlier.

Bt;fore 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 F
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. Mchrauli, as a secret information had been received that he was
having explosives in his possession and was helping the terrorists by allowing G
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 H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] 3 S.C.R.

A 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,
B 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
C 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 PWIO 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
D two persons have given exactly similar statements as that of PW! I 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.

PW\2 Ashok Kumar. Head Constable, Quarter Allotment Cell, Police
E
Headquarters, New Delhi, produced before the Court the original file regarding
allotment of quarter no.B-12, Typ1~ !I, 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
F living in village Naharpur near Rohini and he was having only one room.Since
his daughter was facing difficulty th1~re, he asked the appellant to live in the
quarter allotted to him (quarter no. B-12, PS Mehrau!i) 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
G 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 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. PW I Shashi Bala has deposed that she was Duty Officer at P.S.
H Mehrauli on 8.11.1990 andon the basis of the Rukka brought by Naresh,
KARAMJIT SINGH v. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) [G.P. MATJiUR, J.] J)

- Constable, at 1.30 p.m., she registered a- case against the <1ppellant under
Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of
the TADA as FIR no.298of1990. PW3 Babu Khan, Head Constable deposed
A

that PW! I Pratap Singh, Inspector deposited the case property at P.S. Mehrauli
ID' on 8.11.1990 as per the recovery memo and filed the photocopy of the entry
made regarding the same in the register.
B
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. C
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. PWl3, Sukhdev Singh, who
was Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Cell, proved the s<1nction
accorded by him on 12.9.1991 and PW! 4 M.V. Siddiqui Deputy Secretary,
Home also proved the sanction given by him.Both the witnesses have stated D
that the sanction was granted by them after perusal of the documents of the
case.

The appellant examined one witness in his defence, namely, DWI,
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 E
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
F
PW7 Didar Singh is proved by the statement of PWl2 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 G
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, PWIO Rajinder Prasad and PW! I 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 H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A 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 die 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
B 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 witrn~sses 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 PW! I Pratap Singh. The testimony of these witnesses
C 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
D 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
E police personnel and in absence of any public witness. their testimony alone
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 indep(:ndent witnesses their testimony cannot be
F 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 gro11nds. It will all depend
upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no principle of general
application can be laid down. PWI I Pratap Singh has clearly stated in the
G opening part of his examination-in-chief that ACP Shakti Singh asked some
public witnesses to accompany them but they showed their unwillingness.
PWIO 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
H in November 1990, when terrorism was at its peak in Punjab and neighbouring
KARAMJIT SINGH 1·. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 33
areas.The ground realities cannot be lost sight of that even in normal A
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 B
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 C
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 D
connection with some official work at about I 0.00 a.m. on 8. l l .1990 and had
seen PW9, PWIO and PW! I and ACP Shakti Singh interrogating the appellant
Karamjit Singh in the room of 1.0. 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 E
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 PWS has not stated anything regarding the F
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.PW I I Pratap Singh has clearly stated in his cross-
examination that SI Kartar Singh had come to the Police Station in pursuance G
ofa 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 H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) 3 S.C.R.

A 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, PWIO and PW! I
B 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 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
C 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
D with the impugned judgment and order of the Designated Court.The appeal
is accordingly dismissed.

S.K.S. Appeals dismissed.