State of Haryana vs Shubham @ Shubhi - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1910

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1910

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Deepak Gupta, J.
State of Haryana - Petitioner
Versus
Shubham @ Shubhi and Others - Respondents
CRM-A-937-2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 24-05-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. AG, Haryana

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 395, 397, 201, 120-B - Arms Act - Appeal against acquittal of accused - Delay in filing appeal not justified due to official procedures; therefore, application for condonation of delay dismissed - Well-reasoned judgment by Trial Court upheld, emphasizing that prosecution failed to establish identity and connection of accused with the crime through reliable evidence. (Paras 4, 6, 12, 33)

(B) Benefit of doubt - Principle that where prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused shall be acquitted; inherent probabilities in the evidence led to not believing prosecution's claims and witness identification. (Paras 12, 33)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a dacoity case where the complainant was attacked and robbed at night. The accused were acquitted due to lack of reliable identification and evidence.

Findings of Court:
The evidence presented by the prosecution was not credible, leading the court to uphold the acquittal of the accused.

Issues: Whether the evidence sufficiently established the identity of the accused involved in the alleged crime and if the trial court's findings were reasonable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the prosecution's failure to establish a robust case against the accused warranted the acquittal based on the reasonable doubt standard.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petition against acquittal of respondents (Para 1)
2. application for delay condonation rejected (Para 3 , 4)
3. detailed account of incident and arrests (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. arguments against trial court's acquittal findings (Para 9)
5. court's assessment finds no merit (Para 11)
6. findings support acquittal; appeal dismissed (Para 12 , 14)
7. issues with identification and evidence credibility (Para 16 , 17 , 22 , 26)
8. benefit of doubt leads to acquittal (Para 33)

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

State of Haryana is in this appeal against the judgment dated 08.02.2022 passed by the Court of Learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the respondents-accused have been acquitted of the charges in sessions case No.113 of 2019 [CNR No.HRKU01-005887-2019] arising out of FIR No.23 dated 23.02.2019 registered at Police Station Babain, District Kurukshetra under Sections 341 , 395, 397, 201, 120-B, 379-B IPC & Section 25 of ARMS ACT .

2. The appeal is accompanied by an application to condone the delay of 144 days.

3. It is contended that after the impugned judgment dated 08.02.2022, District Attorney Kurukshetra sent memo dated 24.02.2022 to the District Magistrate Kurukshetra with his comments that it is a fit case for filing appeal. District Magistrate forwarded the said comments along with the copy of the judgment to the office of Advocate-General Haryana vide letter dated 28.03.2022. However, it is on 31.08.2022 that letter was received from the office of Advocate-General Haryana with the direction to file the appeal before the High Court and thereafter, the appeal was drafted without any delay. It is contended that this delay of 144 days has been caused due to official lengthy process.

4. It is evident from the own contention of the appellant that though the record including police file and the impugned judgment were sent to the office of Advocate-General by the District Magistrate, Kurukshetra vide letter dated 28.03.2022 but the office of District Advocate-General took a period of more than 5 months in conveying its direction to file the appeal. Delay caused due to official lengthy procedure is not sufficient to condone the delay. This Court finds no justification so as to condone the delay and so, the application deserve to be dismissed and on this ground itself appeal is liable to be dismissed being barred by time.

5. Even otherwise, if the appeal is considered on merits, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the well-reasoned judgment recorded by the Trial Court.

6. As per prosecution case, occurrence took place on 22.02.2019 at about 11:30 p.m., when complainant Anil Kumar was going to his house at Village Mangoli Jattan from Barara in his car No.HR-26-AR-0072. It was alleged that he was waylaid by two boys, who came on a motorcycle from the nearby sugarcane fields and when the complainant asked the reason to block him, one of the boy fired upon him which passed near his ear. He alighted from the car and the other boy attacked him with iron rod. Two more boys came there having sharp edged weapons and caused injuries on different parts of his body. The assailants were demanding key of the car and money. The fifth boy grappled and took him in the field of sugarcane. After snatching the key of the car and causing injuries, all the assailants fled away towards Babain side along with the motorcycle. Documents of the complainant and three mobile phones make Vivo 11 Pro, Samsung J2 and Nokia were also in the car. It was further stated by the complainant in the complaint made to the police that he could not identify the assailants due to darkness. He went to the house of one Salinder @ Kala and disclosed entire incident to him, who brought him to the house of his brother and then shifted him to the hospital for treatment.

7. During investigation, one of the mobile make Samsung was found in the fields near the place of occurrence on 28.02.2019. During investigation, on the basis of secret information accused Shubham and one