The non-production of important evidence, such as the stolen property, and inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses can weaken the prosecution's case and lead to the acquittal of the accused.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - Robbery and Hurt - Sec. 394 and 324, I. P. C. - Recovery of stolen property - Non-production of important evidence - Adverse inference - Inconsistency in prosecution witnesses' statements - Benefit of doubt to accused - Conviction under Sec. 394 set aside - Conviction under Sec. 324 maintained - Sentence reduced.
Fact of the Case:

Accused-appellants were convicted under Sec. 394 and 324, I. P. C. for robbery and causing hurt. The prosecution alleged that the accused robbed the complainant of Rs. 614/- and inflicted injuries on him and other villagers who tried to apprehend them. The accused claimed that the incident took place in the village and not on the way as alleged by the prosecution, and that they were beaten up by the villagers.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the investigating agency failed to recover the stolen amount, which was an important piece of evidence. The court also found inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery of the amount. The court held that the complainant was partly reliable and that his statement alone was not sufficient to sustain the conviction under Sec. 394, I. P. C. However, the court upheld the conviction under Sec. 324, I. P. C., based on the statements of other witnesses.
Issues: 1. Whether the non-production of the stolen property by the prosecution weakens the case against the accused? 2. Whether the inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery of the amount affect the reliability of their testimony? 3. Whether the complainant's statement alone is sufficient to sustain the conviction under Sec. 394, I. P. C.? 4. Whether the conviction under Sec. 324, I. P. C. is sustainable based on the statements of other witnesses?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the non-production of the stolen property by the prosecution is an important factor to be considered in evaluating the strength of the prosecution's case. The court noted that the investigating agency had failed to take steps to recover the amount, which raised suspicion about the prosecution's story. 2. The court held that the inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery of the amount further weakened the prosecution's case. The court found that the witnesses' statements were contradictory and unreliable. 3. The court held that the complainant's statement alone was not sufficient to sustain the conviction under Sec. 394, I. P. C. The court noted that the complainant was partly reliable and that his statement was contradicted by other evidence. 4. The court held that the conviction under Sec. 324, I. P. C. was sustainable based on the statements of other witnesses. The court found that the statements of these witnesses were consistent and reliable.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal. The conviction and sentence under Sec. 394, I. P. C. were set aside. The conviction under Sec. 324, I. P. C. was maintained, but the sentence was reduced from three years to two years.

JUDGMENT

1. - Present appellants have submitted these appeals against the judgment dated 12-7-82 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Bara. Both the appellants have been convicted under Sec. 394 and 324, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years, and three years on each count, respectively. Fine of Rs. 200/- under Sec. 394 has been imposed in addition to the sentence of 5 years. Directions were also issued that the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The Investigating Officer, Sorsan received the information that on July 7, 1981, some persons have committed robbery in the Jungle and, thereafter, some persons chased the accused and the accused party has given a beating to the persons who have chased them.

3. Shri Gulabsingh (P. W. 5) reached the village Sorsan on the basis of the said information received by him through intelligence and found there that the villagers have succeeded in capturing the accused and the accused are in their custody. Investigating Officer, Gulabsingh (P. W. 5) recorded the statement of Shri Kalyan, the victim of the incident, and forwarded that part of the statement to the police station. The first information report (Ex. P, 16) was recorded at the police station on the basis of the statement recorded. After the investigation, a charge-sheet against the accused was submitted under Secs, 394, 397 and 307 I. P. C. During the trial, the statement of Kalyan (P. W. 8.), the main victim of the incident, and the injured Mohan lal (P. W. 1), Ramswaroop (P. W. 2) and Ghanshyam (P. W. 9) were recorded.

4. Doctor Moharchand (P. W. 3) and Dr. Arjunsingh (P. W. 4) were examined to prove the injury reports Exhibits P/1, P/2, P/3 and P/4. P. W. 7 is a formal witness. Raghuraj Singh was handed over Ex. P/6 in the village by the investigating officer P. W. 5 and he handed over the statement of Kalyan at the police station on the basis of which the first information report was recorded. Ramkrishan (P. W. 6) has been produced to corroborate the statement of Kalyan.

5. Exhibit P/1 to P/4 arc the injury reports, opinion reports and Sky-gram reports. The Investigating Officer inspected the site and prepared the the site-memo (Ex P/7). The accused were formally arrested vide Ex. P/8 and Ex. P/9.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently submitted that no case has been made out against the appellants and no recovery has been made. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that their is a case of robbery against the present appellants and there is a allegation that sum of Rs. 614/- were taken away by the accused-appellants from the person of P. W. 8 Kalyan.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has invited my attention to the statement of Mohanlal (P. W. 1). He has stated in his statement (Ex. D/2) that Altaf and Banshi were caught hold and the amount of Rs. 614/- was made available to Kalyan. He has also invited my attention to the statement of Ramswaroop (P. W. 2), who has stated in his statement that,

"os :i;s esjs ikl jgs FksA bu :i;ksa dks xkao esa tkdj iapk;r Hkou esa jkeflagth esEcj dks fn;sA"

8. He has further invited my attention to Ex. D/4 and the part A' to B in which it has been recorded that the amount was made available to Kalyan on the very day. This submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is only for the purpose of showing the contradictions in the statement of the witnesses. Kalyan (P. W. 8) has not state a single word in examination in Chief about the mode of returning him the amount which is said to have been robbed. However, he has stated in cross examination that -

"bl ?kVuk ds 15 fnu ckn esjs :i;s eq>s ykSVk;s FksA"
Ghanshyam (P. W. 9) has submitted in his statement that-

"geus :i;s iapk;r okyks dks ns fn;sA"

9. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants has firstly submitted that it was obligatory. on the part of the investigating agency to seize the amount and to produce it before the Court. He submits that if there would

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1983 Supreme(Raj) 320

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHDinker Lal Mehta, J.Altaf & Anr. - AppellantsVersusState - RespondentS. B. Criminal Appeal No. 304 of 1982. Against the Judgment dated 12-7-1982 passed by the Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge No. 1, Bara in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1982.Decided On : 24-03-1983

The non-production of important evidence, such as the stolen property, and inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses can weaken the prosecution's case and lead to the acquittal of the accused.