IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Manvinder Singh @ Munny & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRA-S No. 369 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 24-05-2022
Conviction - Indian Penal Code - Section 379-A
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the snatching of a mobile phone from the victim while she was walking home. The victim filed a complaint, leading to the registration of an FIR under Section 379-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented was not appraised in a wholesome and harmonious manner by the trial court, leading to a gross misappreciation and non-appreciation of evidence. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and the consequent sentence were quashed and set aside.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the identification of the accused, the validity of the recovery of the snatched mobile phone, and the appraisal of the evidence by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court failed to appraise the evidence in a wholesome and harmonious manner, leading to a gross misappreciation and non-appreciation of evidence, which resulted in the appeal being allowed.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and the consequent sentence were quashed and set aside. The personal and surety bonds of the appellants were ordered to be cancelled and discharged, and the accused-appellants, if in custody and not required in any other case, were ordered to be set at liberty.
JUDGMENT
Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant appeal is directed against the impugned verdict of conviction, rendered on 03.01.2019, upon CIS No.56 of 2018, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, with respect to a charge drawn against the accused qua an offence punishable under Section 379-A of the Indian Penal Code,. In consequence to the verdict of conviction, as made upon the accused and, qua the above drawn charge, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, he proceeded to impose, upon the convicts' a consequent therewith sentence of rigorous imprisonment extending upto a tenure of 5 years each, and, also imposed upon each of the convicts sentence of fine of Rs. 25,000/- each, besides upon default of payment of fine, he sentenced them, to undergo rigorous imprisonment upto six months.
2. Both the convicts are aggrieved from the above drawn verdict of conviction, and, the consequent therewith sentence(s) (supra), and, as made upon them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, and, have cast thereagainst the instant criminal appeal before this Court.
3. The brief facts of the case are that as per complainant, she was working with Wrangler Clothes/garments showroom situated in Model Town, Yamuna Nagar. On 09.07.2017 at about 9:00 pm, after finishing her job, she was going to her house on foot via Santpura Road. When she reached near Santpura Gurudwara, a call was received on her phone, and, while she was attending the phone call while walking, and, upon reaching near Selfie Beauty Parlour on Chhoti Line, two young boys came on a bike of black colour, snatched her mobile phone of LYF company, containing one sim of TATA company bearing No.7206076760, and, another sim of Jio company bearing No.8708966893, and, thereafter they fled away. Her mobile phone was of white colour. She prayed that her mobile phone may be got recovered, and, legal action may be taken against them.
4. On the basis of aforesaid application Ex.PA, FIR Ex.PD was registered under Section 379-A IPC by ASI Bhupinder Singh. Thereafter, ASI Bhupinder Singh along with the complainant, and, her uncle visited the place of occurrence, and, prepared rough site plan Ex.PE, at the instance of the complainant.
5. The star prosecution witness, is the aggrieved-victim- complainant who lodged FIR(s) carried in Ex. PD, before the police station concerned. Therefore, a keen analyses of her deposition is required to be made. If in her testification as made, before the learned trial Judge concerned, she has neither made gross embelishments or improvements from her previously recorded statement in writing, and, nor, has contradicted the version qua the genesis of the prosecution case, as echoed in her examination-in-chief, upon, in her being cross-examined, thereupon this Court would proceed to assign credit to her testification, whereas, if she has made the above stained deposition, thereupon this Court would not assign probative worth to her testification.
6. The gravamen of the penal occurrence, is embodied in the FIR, as, became lodged qua the occurrence, to which Ex. PD is assigned. The narrations carried thereins are necessarily required to be reproduced hereinafter, as therefrom, the above factum of her testification in Court, rather suffering or not suffering from the above stains would rather emerge.
"Copy of writing is as under: To SHO, PS City Yamuna Nagar, Respected Sir, it is requested that I, Parminder Kaur, D/O Late Ram Singh, Caste Ramgadiya Sikh, am resident of House no. 209, East Bhatia Nagar, Yamuna Nagar. I am doing service in a Showroom of wrangler clothes situated in Model Town. I used to go to the shop and return in the morning and evening by foot. Today, in the evening, at about 09.00 PM, after finishing work at shop, I was going to my house by foot via Santpura Road. When I reached near Santpura Gurudwara, then a phone call was received on my phone, I was attending the phone call while
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a wholesome and harmonious appraisal of evidence by the trial court to avoid misappreciation and non-appreciation of evidence.
In criminal law, a conviction requires the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any doubts must benefit the accused.
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 lack of unflinching evidence and the tainted and invented recovery can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of reliable evidence, doubts exaggerated testimony, and highlights the significance of recovery evidence and incriminating circumstances in establishing guilt.
The prosecution must establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural requirements, including substantial compliance with Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., must be adhered to.
The main legal point established is that electronic evidence, particularly call details, must be accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act to be admissible in court.
The court emphasized that lack of essential documentation and procedural compliance invalidates the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused who were convicted of kidnapping for ra....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.