Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Kuldeep Tiwari, J.
Amandeep @ Kalu - Appellant - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent - Respondent
CRA-S-1131-SB of 2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 30-01-2023
IPC - Conviction challenged under Sections 392, 328, 379, and 506 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 392, 328, 379, and 506
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-accused challenged the verdict of conviction and order of sentence under Sections 392, 328, 379, and 506 of IPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellant-accused administered intoxicated tea to the complainant and robbed him of Rs.30,000. The trial court acquitted the appellant-accused of the charge under Section 392 but convicted him under Section 328 of IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 328 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The lack of forensic or medical evidence, material improvements in the complainant's statements, and the absence of concrete evidence led to the appellant-accused being acquitted due to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the prosecution's failure to prove the charge under Section 328 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt, lack of forensic or medical evidence, and material improvements in the complainant's statements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of concrete evidence, including the failure to prove the adulteration of the tea with any stupefying substance, absence of forensic or medical reports, and material improvements in the complainant's statements.
Final Decision: The appellant-accused was acquitted from the charges framed against him due to the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
KULDEEP TIWARI, J.
1. Through the present appeal, the appellant-accused has challenged the verdict of conviction, and, order of sentence dated 25.01.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, in case FIR No.55 of 29.10.2013, registered under Sections 392, 328, 379 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), at Police Station G.R.P. Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra, whereby, he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 328 of IPC, and, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years, and, to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. The prosecution story unfolds from the statement, Ex.P2, of Udaharn Dass (PW2) (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant'), as recorded by A.S.I., Shish Pal (Investigation Officer/PW10), on 29.10.2013, at about 15:30 hours, while being present at Platform No.01, Railway Station, Kurukshetra. The relevant extract of statement, Ex.P2, is extracted hereunder:-
“I have been residing here for the last approx. one year. There was a special worship going on at Gita Kunj Ashram, Jyotisar, for the last three months, which completed on 27.10.2013. In this special worship, I got a total amount of Rs.30,000/- for the services provided by me. I was also having with me one plastic sac, which contained some household clothes and fruits. Yesterday, on 28.10.2013, at about 06:40 am, I had to board Jhelum Express and for that purpose, I reached Railway Station, Kurukshetra at about 05:00 am. Sanjay Dass and Rahul had come with me, in an auto-rickshaw, from the Ashram to see off me at Railway Station. I was carrying one bag of Ashram, which had Rs.30,000/-, my voter card, PAN card, mobile phone having number 89503-97745. I bought a ticket for Mathura from Railway Station and sat on a cemented bench at platform No.l, in front of R.P.F. Police Post, Kurukshetra, awaiting the train. In the meantime, a Sikh person, in the apparel of a Nihang and carrying a Kirpan, came to me and asked me as to where I would go. I replied to him that I will go to Mathura and the said person stated that he will go to Agra and therefore, we will be companions in the journey. Thereafter, the said Sikh person left a bag with me and went to take tea and he came back with two cups of tea. He offered tea to me but I showed reluctance to consume it, however, despite that, he forcibly administered tea to me. The taste of the tea was different and it was much bitter. Thereafter, that Nihang went away and one Baba, wearing red cloth/muffler on his head, came and sat near me, who was a companion of the said Nihang. After a while, the said Nihang came dressed in a white kurta-pyjama and a black cloth/parna tied over his head, who asked me to accompany him to platform No.2, but, I replied that there is some time in arrival of the train. Upon this, he threatened me to accompany him silently and in case I played clever, he will kill me. In the meanwhile, I got intoxicated and the said Nihang and his companion took away my bag of currency notes and I fell unconscious on the railway lines. At about 10 o'clock, Pandits Rishi Raj, Bhawani Shankar, Achal Kaushak, Naresh Krishan, Vikas, Dinesh, Gautam, Mahesh and Shyam Sharma came there from Ashram as they also had to go to Mathura. They lifted me in an unconscious state and took me to Gita Kunj Ashram. I have gained consciousness today on 29.10.2013 and have came to you (police). The aforesaid Nihang and his companion have stolen my bag containing Rs.30,000/-, PAN card, voter card, under the threat to kill me. Strict legal action be taken against them. I can identify both the aforesaid persons on seeing them.”
3. On the basis of the above statement, initially an FIR under Sections 379 and 506 of IPC was registered against two unknown persons. Thereafter, investigation was carried out in the matter. The Investigation Officer made e
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, including the need for concrete evidence and consistency in the c....
Conviction under Section 328 of the IPC requires corroborative medical evidence; mere oral testimony is insufficient.
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant administered a stupefying substance with intent to cause injury, leading to the acquittal.
Conviction for voluntarily causing simple hurt upheld; partial witness contradictions and defective investigation do not warrant acquittal; separate incidents permit differential conviction of accuse....
The need for consistency and credibility in evaluating evidence in criminal cases, and the requirement to prove common intention under S.149 IPC.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony and failure to examine material witnesses led to the appellant's acquittal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
