Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Nisha M. Thakore, J.
State Of Gujarat - Appellant
Vs.
Suhel Ismail Ibrahim Vora Patel - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 2008
Decided On : 21-05-2024
Section 397 - Acquittal - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397 and 34 of the I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the respondent-accused for the offence alleged under sections 397 and 34 of the I.P.C. The prosecution's case involved a robbery incident where the complainant was allegedly attacked and robbed of a significant amount of money.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the involvement of the respondent-accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the lack of evidence establishing the accused's participation in the alleged offence, including the absence of a Test Identification Parade and the failure of the complainant to identify the accused during the trial.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to establish the accused's involvement in the robbery, including the lack of a Test Identification Parade and the failure of the complainant to identify the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of establishing the accused's involvement beyond reasonable doubt and highlighted the failure of the prosecution to provide substantial or corroborating evidence. The court also noted the absence of a Test Identification Parade as a crucial factor in the lack of evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's acquittal of the respondent-accused, and canceled the bailable warrant issued upon the respondent-accused.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is filed at the instance of the State under Section 378(1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”), challenging the judgment and order dated 15.06.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Bharuch (for short, “the learned Judge”) in Sessions Case No.103 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Judge has recorded acquittal of the present respondent-accused for the offence alleged under sections 397 and 34 of the I.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
2.2 It is the case of the complainant that the complainant used to collect money derived from the business of petrol pump and used to deposit the same in the bank. On 03.11.2003 at around 8:00 a.m. in the morning, the complainant had went to the petrol pump on his scooter bearing registration no.G-UN-9955 and the amount of Rs.4,18,945/- was collected by him from the petrol pump.
2.3 It is the case of the complainant that the aforesaid bundles of notes were put by him inside violate colour bag and he had went to depot of Kerosene of M. Patel & Co. at around 9:00 a.m., where the notes were classified into different bundles and stamps were affixed on it. At around 11:00 a.m., the complainant had proceeded to the bank along with witness namely Bhupendrabhai Chhaganbhai Patel on his scooter to deposit the aforesaid amount. On his way, two unknown persons came on Hero Honda Splendor bike and intervened them. The complainant had, therefore, stopped the vehicle. The driver of the motorcycle handed over his bike to pillion rider and pointed knife to the complainant.
2.4 It is the case of the complainant that the blunt part of the knife was hit on his head. The said accused had caught hold of him, and thereafter, hit second blow on his right side of the face, causing injury on his face. Noticing the aforesaid assault, the witness Bhupendrabhai Chhaganbhai Patel, who was sitting as pillion rider on scooter ran away from the spot, whereas the co-accused who was sitting as pillion rider kept started motorcycle on the stand and had forcefully removed the bag carrying bundles of money from the basket of the scooter of the complainant and had proceeded towards the bike.
2.5 It is further alleged that the accused who was caught hold by the complainant escaped from his arms and shifted to his bike. Both the accused persons left the place of the incident with bag carrying bundles of money. It is alleged by the complainant that the driver of the bike wore black colour helmet with shadow glass. It is further alleged that both the accused persons wore sky blue full size/sleeve shirts and brown colour pants. According to the complainant, the second person was having mustache and was of medium built up. The accused who was sitting as pillion rider was having brown colour skin. The complainant could not notice the registration number of the bike, because of sudden incident. However, he has expressed that he can identify the accused with regard to the money lost in the aforesaid incident. It was alleged that the bundles were carrying stamp of ORO petrol pump as well as seal of Bank of Baroda. Since the complainant had received injuries on the head, he was brought to Civil Hospital, Bharuch and while he was under treatment, the complaint was recorded and FIR came to be registered. With such allegations made in the complaint, the FIR being C.R. No.I-240 of 2003 was registered with the Bharuch City “A” Division Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 397, 34 and 120 (B) of the I.P.C. and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, against two unknown persons.
2.6 Investigation was conducted by the Police Sub-Inspector, Vagara Police Station, Bharuch. During the course of investigation, the vehicle involved in the all
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the accused's involvement beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the importance of substantial and co....
The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of corroborative evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies can impact the outcome of the case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and in the absence of reliable evidence, the accused is entitled ....
The prosecution must prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and the appellate court's scope of interference in acquittal appeals is limited.
The judgment underscores the fundamental legal principle that the prosecution must prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and that suspicion alone cannot lead to a conviction.
Presiding Officer failed to perform his duty as required by law and did not even refer to facts elicited from cross-examination of witnesses.
The absence of a Test Identification Parade, along with inadequacies in prosecution evidence, poses a reasonable doubt on the conviction under Section 395 IPC.
The prosecution failed to prove the use of a deadly weapon during the commission of robbery, leading to the court's ruling to overturn the conviction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
