Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 419
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAKESH KUMAR, ARVIND SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Manoj Kumar Yadav, son of Late Rameshwar Yadav - Appellants
Versus
The State Of Bihar and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 878 of 2010
Decided On : 29-03-2018
For the Appellants : Sri Sanjay Kumar
For the Respondent: Sri Ansul, Sri Manish Kumar, Sri A.K. Sinha
The judgment emphasizes the importance of conclusive identification and the potential for false implication in criminal cases, highlighting the need for strong and reliable evidence to support a conviction.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 372; Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302/34, 380, 452; Arms Act, 1959, Section 27
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial judge, which was initially dismissed but later allowed by the Supreme Court. The case involved charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, relating to a nighttime robbery and the subsequent murder of the appellant's father.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no perversity in the trial judge's judgment of acquittal and that the evidence did not support a conviction. The court noted that the identification of the accused was not conclusive, and there were indications of strained relations and the possibility of false implication. The court concluded that the trial judge had not erred in passing the judgment of acquittal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial judge erred in passing the judgment of acquittal, considering the evidence and identification of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of conclusive identification, strained relations between the parties, and the possibility of false implication. The court emphasized that there was no perversity in the trial judge's judgment and that the evidence did not warrant a conviction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal against the judgment of acquittal, upholding the trial judge's decision. The respondent was discharged from the liability of bail bond.
RAKESH KUMAR, J.
1. The present Appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”) was earlier filed against judgment dated 2nd June, 2010 passed by Sri Krishan Kumar Agrawal, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Gaya (hereinafter referred to as the “trial judge”) whereby the learned trial judge acquitted respondent no. 2 from charges of Section 302/34, 380, 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “I.P.C.”) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the “Arms Act”).
2. The Appeal was firstly taken up for hearing at the point of admission on 22.07.2010 and after going through the judgment of the trial court a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court finding good grounds for passing order of acquittal dismissed the Appeal in limine, however, against rejection of Appeal, the informant, who is appellant in the present case, preferred an Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 9157 of 2010. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the fact that judgment of rejection of Appeal was having no reason, considered the judgment as cryptic and allowed the Appeal after setting aside the impugned judgment i.e. the order dated 22.07.2010 passed in the present Appeal and the Hon’ble Supreme Court remitted back the matter to this Court for its disposal. Thereafter, on 24.11.2016 the Appeal was admitted for hearing, lower court record was called for and bailable warrant of arrest for Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) was issued against respondent no. 2. It was observed as follows: “The respondent no. 2 shall execute a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties each of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Gaya in connection with Sessions Trial No. 541 of 2009/88 of 2007(S.J.) (arising from Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 100 of 2005)”. Whereafter respondent no. 2 has entered his appearance. It is evident that respondent no. 2 was put on trial in Sessions Trial No. 541 of 2009/88 of 2007 (S.J.) (arising out of Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 100 of 2005). However, after examining entire evidence including defence evidence, the learned trial judge passed judgment of acquittal assigning detailed reason by its judgment dated 2nd June, 2010 which is under challenge in the present Appeal.
3. At the very outset, it is necessary to indicate that against judgment of acquittal there is very limited scope for this Court to examine the evidence, which has already been examined by the trial court and a finding has been recorded. If there is apparent perversity or it was a case of passing judgment contrary to the record, then in that event certainly judgment of acquittal was required to be interfered with. Before proceeding, we have minutely examined the entire judgment of the trial court and after going through the same prima facie we are of the opinion that there is no perversity in the judgment. However, since the matter was remitted back to this Court by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has examined entire evidences, which were brought on record during the trial.
4. Short fact of the case is that on 10.09.2005 in the morning a written complaint was filed by the present appellant namely Manoj Kumar Yadav addressed to the Officer- in- charge, Bodh Gaya Police Station. In the written report the informant/appellant stated that in the preceding night i.e. on 09.09.2005 at 11.30 P.M. he had gone to sleep along with Dharmendra Sao (P.W.1) on two different beds in his dallan (open area). His father was sleeping in a room opposite to Dallan where informant along with Dharmendra was sleeping. He disclosed that at the time of sleeping they were discussing regarding sale of tractor and other domestic issues. In the night at about 2-2.30 A.M. they awoke after hearing barking of dogs. Thereafter, he removed cloth sheet from his face
