Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Raj) 707

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SUDESH BANSAL, J.
The State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Devendra @ Baba, S/o. Ram Singh and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 279 Of 1990 Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 400 Of 1990, S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 424 of 1990, S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 61 Of 1990
Decided On : 18-06-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP., Mr. Vinit Sharma for Mr. B.M. Sharma.

The appellate court upholds acquittals when identifications are not beyond reasonable doubt; conviction for possession of firearms was maintained but sentence reduced to time already served.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 395, 397, 399, 402 and 412 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25(1B)(a) - Criminal appeals against acquittals - The State's appeals challenging acquittals for dacoity and related offences were dismissed as identifications and evidence were not established beyond reasonable doubt. Contrarily, conviction under Arms Act maintained with sentence reduced to the period already undergone. (Paras 1, 20, 36)

(B) Acquittal - Standard of proof - Appeals against acquittal require compelling evidence on record for overturning lower court decisions. Mere presence at a location does not prove intent or preparation for dacoity without corroborating evidence. (Para 29)

(C) Evidence - Weightage - Reliance on police testimony must be corroborated, especially when independent witnesses turn hostile; otherwise, accusations become mere assumptions. (Paras 10.5, 12)

Facts of the case:
The State filed appeals after accused were acquitted of conspiracy to commit dacoity. Criminal cases stemmed from separate FIRs with weaknesses in identification and corroborating evidence regarding the accused's presence and actions during alleged offences. (Paras 1, 4, 25)

Findings of Court:
Acquittals affirmed due to insufficient evidence against the accused under Sections 395 and 397, while conviction for possession of firearms under the Arms Act was maintained, with reduced sentencing based on prior custody. (Paras 20, 36)

Issues: Whether the identifications and evidence against the accused were sufficient for conviction, and if the appellate court should interfere with the acquittal decisions of the lower courts based on evidence review standards. (Paras 29-30)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that reliance on police evidence without corroboration from independent witnesses lacks substantiality, and an acquittal may only be overturned when compelling reasons are shown. (Paras 20, 29)

Result: Appeals dismissed except for the maintenance of conviction under the Arms Act with modified sentence. (Paras 36, 37)

Table of Content
1. overview of factual background of the cases. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9)
2. arguments regarding the reliability of police testimony. (Para 11 , 12)
3. overview of legal standards for conviction based on police testimony. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
4. conclusions on acquittal based on insufficient evidence. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
5. final determinations regarding acquittals and convictions. (Para 28 , 35)
6. final judgment and order regarding appeals. (Para 36 , 38 , 39)

JUDGMENT :

(Sudesh Bansal, J.) :

1. With consent of counsel for accused and Public Prosecutor, all four appeals have been heard together and would stand decided by this common judgment.

2. Record of each case including the impugned judgment, has been scanned and gone through.

3. State’s Appeal No.279/1990 filed under Section 3 78 CrPC, arises out of an FIR No.8/1988 registered at Police Station Roopbas, District Bharatpur on 17.01.1988 for offences under Sections 3 95 and 397 IPC in respect of incident of dacoity allegedly committed in the mid night of 16-17th January, 1988. After investigation, charge-sheet against three accused namely Devendra @ Baba, Amarnath @ Bhagat and Nihal Singh was filed, whereupon Sessions Case No.52/1988 came to be registered and after trial, all three accused persons have been acquitted of charge for offences under Sections 3 95 and 397 IPC extending benefit of doubt vide judgment dated 30.06.1989 passed by the Sessions Court of Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Areas, Bharatpur. Hence, against the judgment of acquittal, State has preferred this criminal appeal.

4. State’s Appeal No.400/1990 arises out of FIR No.43/1988 registered at Police Station Roopbas, District Bharatpur by one Brijendra Singh Jat, on 19.03.1988 for offences under Section 395 and 397 IPC in respect of incident of dacoity allegedly occurred in the mid night of 18-19th March 1988 at Nangla Haveli. In this FIR, during investigation three accused namely Devendra @ Baba, Amarnath @ Bhagat and Nihal Singh, who have been arrested in FIR No.8/1988 at same Police Station Roopbas on 10.05.1988 were also arrested in the present FIR as well. After filing of charge-sheet, Sessions Case No.53/1988 was registered and the Court of Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Bharatpur, after appreciation of prosecution evidence, acquitted all three accused vide judgment dated 29.06.1989 having concluded that identification of accused persons to be involved in the incident of dacoity in the mid night of 18-19th March, 1988 is not established beyond reasonable doubt and it is also not proved that which deadly weapon was used by which offender, accordingly offences under Sections 395 and 397 IPC were not proved against accused. Hence, challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 29.06.1989, State has preferred this criminal appeal.

5. State’s Appeal No.424/1990 has arisen out of FIR No.69/1988 registered at Police Station, Sewar, District Bharatpur for offences unders 395, 397 and 412 IPC in respect of incident of dacoity allegedly occurred in the mid night of 9-10th April, 1988 at village Dhanagarh. In this FIR, during investigation four accused persons namely Devendra @ Baba, Amarnath @ Bhagat, Nihal Singh and Pappu @ Karan Singh were arrested and after filing of charge-sheet, Sessions Case No.51/1988 was registered. All four accused have been given benefit of doubt and acquitted by the Court of Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Areas, Bharatpur vide judgment dated 16.01.1990. Hence, against the judgment of acquittal, State has preferred this criminal appeal, but in the appeal, acquittal of only three accused namely Devendra @ Baba, Amarnath @ Bhagat and Pappu @ Karan Singh has been challenged and no appeal against acquittal of co-accused Nihal Singh has been filed as he has not been made party respondent in this appeal. It is to be noted that as far as three accused namely Devendra @ Baba, Amarnath @ Bhagat and Nihal Singh are concerned, they all had similar charges for offences under S