Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 1329
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
PANKAJ BHANDARI, BHUWAN GOYAL, JJ.
Pravindra @ Leela, S/o Mool Chand – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through PP - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 641 of 2012, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2012
Decided on : 10-10-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Jain, amicus curiae, assisted by Mr. Parth Sharma, Mr. Parth Vashistha, Mr. Vishal Pareek for Mr. Deepak Chauhan , Mr. Sudhir Jain, amicus curiae assisted by Mr. Parth Sharma & Mr. Parth Vashistha
For the Respondent: Mr. Javed Choudhary, Addl. GA
The prosecution must establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and serious lapses in the prosecution's case can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
Headnote:
Conviction - Criminal Appeals - Sections 332, 353, 336 R/w 34, 307/34, 302/34 of IPC and 3/25 of Arms Act - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the accused for various offenses including bank robbery, firing at a constable, and possession of arms. The prosecution alleged that the accused were involved in a bank robbery and fired at the constable during their attempt to flee. The accused were convicted and sentenced by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found serious lapses in the prosecution's case, including the failure to establish the accused's involvement in the bank robbery, lack of identification of the accused by witnesses, and discrepancies in the arrest memos. The court also noted the prosecution's failure to connect the recovered bullet with the accused's weapons and raised doubts about the constable's cause of death.
Issues: The issues included the lack of evidence linking the accused to the bank robbery, discrepancies in the arrest memos, failure to conduct identification parades, and doubts about the cause of the constable's death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the prosecution's burden to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and highlighted the serious lapses in the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Final Decision: The court quashed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the accused of all charges. The appellants were directed to furnish bonds and set at liberty.
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Bhandari, J.
1. Accused/appellants have preferred these Criminal Appeals aggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.04.2012 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Khetri, whereby appellants have been convicted for offence under Sections 332, 353, 336 R/w 34, 307/34, 302/34 of IPC and 3/25 of Arms Act and sentenced as under:
(i) For offence under Section 332 IPC:- three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month additional simple imprisonment to each accused appellants.
(ii) For offence under Section 353 IPC:- two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.300/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days additional simple imprisonment to each accused appellants.
(iii) For offence under Section 336 R/w 34 IPC:- three months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three days additional simple imprisonment to each accused appellants.
(iv) For offence under Section 307/34 IPC:- ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.3000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo, six months additional simple imprisonment to each accused appellants.
(v) For offence under Section 302/34 IPC:- life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo, six months additional simple imprisonment to each accused appellants
(vi) For offence under Section 3/25 Arms Act:- three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of non-payment of fine, to further undergo, one month additional simple imprisonment to each accused appellants.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 09.06.2010, the complainant- Udai Singh (PW-3), Sub Inspector of Police, Surajgarh Police Station lodged a written report (Ex. P7) at Police Station Buhana, District Jhunjhunu with regard to an incident alleged to have taken place on the same day wherein it was stated that at around 11:15 am, a telephonic information was received regarding four armed robbers looting and firing in Bank of Baroda and that they are moving towards Kajla village in a Swift car. He then intimated higher authorities and also contacted Constable- Chandrabhan who confirmed his presence at village Kajla. He then directed Constable- Chandrabhan to barricade the road with the help of villagers in order to stop the robbers. Upon reaching the spot along with other police personnel, he saw Chandrabhan along with Ghanshyam Singh, Ummed Singh, Himmat Singh present there and they had one accused in their hold. He also saw that Chandrabhan had sustained bullet injury on his shoulder. Chandrabhan then informed complainant-Udai Singh (PW-3) that as he was barricading the area, a Swift car which was being followed by some villagers in private vehicles arrived at the place. The robbers were trying to flee, so Chandrabhan threw a stone on the windshield which frightened the driver of the car. He then opened the car door, took the accused- Parvinder (driver) out of the car and pushed him to the ground. It was then that other accused fired at him from the back but he along with the villagers still held onto the accused Parvinder. The other accused then kept firing, fled the scene and some villagers followed them. A desi katta was found on the person of accused- Parvinder. Chandrabhan informed that the other remaining accused had gone towards Kajla ki bans. ASI- Hanuman Singh, Incharge, P.S. Bahuna, then reached the spot and they sent injured Chandrabhan to Chiwada hospital and accused- Parvinder to Surajgarh Police Station. Thereafter, they along of the some villagers started moving towards Kajla ki bans, where the remaining accused had fled. After a distance, they found some set of clothes and shoes on the ground. They then found the other accused running naked and on asked to stop, the accuse
