Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 1421
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Sabina and Goverdhan Bardhar, JJ.
Satpal - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1189 of 2017, 1259 of 2017, 1260 of 2017, 1261 of 2017, 1458 of 2017
Decided On : 24-07-2019
G.S. Fauzdar, Advocate, Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, Advocate, Rajesh Choudhary, Advocate, Yogesh Singhal, Advocate, Jiya Ur Rahman, Advocate, Javed Chaudhary, Advocate
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 395, 397 IPC, SECTION 3/25 ARMS ACT - Acquittal of accused - Identification of accused doubtful - Benefit of doubt given to accused.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants were convicted by the trial court for robbing a bank. They appealed, arguing that the prosecution had failed to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution witnesses had failed to identify the appellants during the trial. The court also found that the appellants had been shown to the witnesses in the police station before their identification parade, which tainted the identification process.
Issues: Whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The court relied on the fact that the prosecution witnesses had failed to identify the appellants during the trial and that the appellants had been shown to the witnesses in the police station before their identification parade.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellants of all charges.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order above mentioned five appeals would be disposed of.
2. Appellants had faced trial in FIR No.146 dated 08.06.2012 registered at Police Station Udhyog Nagar, District Bharatpur for the offence punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').
3. Prosecution story, in brief, was that on 08.06.2012 at about 12.40 p.m., 8/10 persons entered the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Branch Udhyog Nagar, District Bharatpur. The said persons snatched the rifle from the guard and started beating him. They snatched cash lying in the cabin from the cashier Vivek Anand. They also then entered the strong room and took away Rs.4,28,195/- lying in the strong room.
4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellants and Manoj Thakur and Pankaj @ Bhoja. So far as accused Rajkumar is concerned, he was declared an absconder. Accused Pankaj @ Bhoja died during the pendency of the trial.
5. Charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 395/120-B and 397 IPC. Charge under Section 3/25 of Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was also framed against accused Sandeep @ Nikki.
6. Accused did not plead guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined twenty eight witnesses during trial. Accused when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in this case.
8. Accused examined two witnesses in their defence.
9. Trial court vide judgment/order dated 22.05.2017 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 395 and 397 read with Section 120-B IPC. Appellant Sandeep @ Nikki was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 3/25 of the Act. Accused Manoj Thakur was acquitted of the charges framed against him. Hence, the present appeals by the appellants. Accused Raj Kumar was later arrested and has been acquitted by the trial court vide judgment dated 13.03.2019.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove that the offence-inquestion had been committed by the appellants. PW-3 Vivek Anand cashier and PW-10 Shailesh Kumar bank employee have failed to identify the appellants during trial. No reliance could be placed on the testimony of PW-1 Narendra Kumar Vaswani and PW-2 Parasram. From the cross-examination of PW-2, it was evident that all the accused had been shown to the PW-1 and PW-2 in the police station before their identification parade. PW-1 has stated that some of the accused had covered their faces with a cloth. PW-4 Ram Singh, Assistant Manager did not support the prosecution case, during trial.
11. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeals.
12. Present case relates to bank robbery committed on 08.06.2012 at about 12.40 p.m. Material witnesses in the present case would be complainant-Narendra Kumar Vaswani (PW-1), guard Parasram (PW-2), cashier Vivek Anand (PW-3) and bank employee Shailesh Kumar (PW-10). So far as PW-3 Vivek Anand is concerned, he failed to identify the accused during trial. Similarly PW-10 Shailesh Kumar also failed to identify the accused during trial.
13. Complainant-Narendra Kumar Vaswani while appearing in the witness box as PW-1 deposed as per the contents of the FIR. He further deposed that he had identified accused Arun @ Fauji @ Anil @ Gudda, Shyam Pathak @ Shyam Kishore Pathak, Satpal, Sandeep @ Nikki and Raju @ Rajkumar in an identification parade conducted druing investigation. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the person who had entered his room, had covered his face. Some of the persons had covered their faces. He could not tell as to how many of the accused had covered their faces and how many of them were with uncovered faces. None of them had made any effort to remove the cloth from the face of the accused. He could not tell as to
