Back
1988 Supreme(All) 55
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. N. DIKSHITA
MEWARAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 1337 Of 1979
Decided On : 02/05/1988
TEJ PAL
The prosecution must prove the theft beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence must be reliable and credible.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - THEFT - SECTION 411, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - CONVICTION SET ASIDE - INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE - PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THEFT - WITNESSES UNRELIABLE - WATCH RECOVERED FROM APPELLANT NOT CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN TO BE STOLEN PROPERTY.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant Mewa Ram was convicted under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code for theft. The prosecution alleged that he, along with three others, looted four trucks and a tanker, stealing cash and a watch from the drivers and occupants. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the theft and that the evidence against him was unreliable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellant. The witnesses were unreliable, and the watch recovered from the appellant was not conclusively proven to be stolen property.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the theft beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the witnesses were reliable and credible. 3. Whether the watch recovered from the appellant was stolen property.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the theft beyond a reasonable doubt. The witnesses were unreliable, and their testimony was full of contradictions and inconsistencies. 2. The court found that the witnesses were unreliable and incredible. They could not identify the appellant as one of the robbers, and their testimony was contradicted by other evidence. 3. The court held that the watch recovered from the appellant was not conclusively proven to be stolen property. The owner of the watch could not identify it, and there was no evidence that it was stolen.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, and acquitted him.
( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by Mewa Ram against the judgment and order dated 26-3-1979 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, convicting him under Section 411, I. P. C. and sentencing him to two years R. I.
( 2 ) THE prosecution story, in brief, is as follows : On 15-6-1978 Munney Khan,driver of truck No. USW 1030 was transporting sugarcane from Banthara Gana Centre to Roza Sugar Factory. When he reached on the pucca road he noticed a tanker standing there. He also noticed four miscreants standing near the tanker two of whom were having single barrel guns. After looting the tanker they rushed towards truck No. USW 1030, stopped it and relieved the cleaner of the truck of Rs. 6/- and an Angocha. Immediately thereafter another truck No. USP 6969 also arrived there and its driver Brij Lal and two occupants Akhil Kumar and Vinod Kumar were also looted by the said four miscreants. After the departure of the miscreants the driver of the tanker No. USE 5950 Mohd. Mian told Munney Khan that the miscreants had looted away his wrist watch and a sum of Rs. 1. 25/-, Brij Lal, driver of truck No. USP 6969 informed Munney Khan that he had been robbed of Rs. 1976 while Akhil Kumar who was also sitting in the truck was relieved of his watch. The incident took place at about 7. 00 P. M.
( 3 ) A report of the incident was lodged by Munney Khan on 15-6-1978 at about 7. 45 P. M. , the police station being at a distance of about 9 miles from the place of occurrence.
( 4 ) THE investigation of the case was entrusted to S. I. Jamal Ahmad Khan, P. W. 4. During the course of investigation Mewa Ram appellant was intercepted on 23-6-1978 and a watch was recovered from his possession which was sealed. A country made pistol and some cartridges were also recovered from his person for which another memo was prepared. After the investigation was completed a chargesheet was submitted against the appellant Mewa Ram and one Jhamman.
( 5 ) IN support of its case the prosecution examined Munney Khan, P. W. 1, Atul Kumar, P. W. 2, Brij Lal, P. W. 3, S. I. Jamal Ahmed Khan, P. W. 4, Ashfaq, P. W. 5, and Chhichoo, P. W. 6. Mohd. Mian whose watch was robbed was examined as C. W. 1.
( 6 ) THE trial Court after examining the evidence on record came to the conclusion that Jhamman, co-accused, was not guilty of the offence charged and accordingly acquitted him, but found the appellant Mewa Ram guilty under Section 411,i. P. C. instead of Sections 392/397,1. P. C. and convicting him thereunder sentenced him to two years R. I.
( 7 ) HAVING gone through the record and after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned State counsel I have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant and he is entitled to be acquitted
( 8 ) MUNNEY Khan, P. W. 1, testified that he lodged the first information report. In his statement before the Court he nowhere stated that the watch of Mohd. Mian, driver of tanker No. USE 5959, was also looted though this fact finds mention in the report lodged by him. His non-mention of the watch in his statement assumes significance when we find that Mohd. Mian himself was not examined by the prosecution but he was summoned by the Court. Beyond narrating the incident and stating that four miscreants had looted him and others, this witness could not point out that Mewa Ram appellant was one of the miscreants. His testimony cannot be held to be sufficient to warrant conviction and hence has to be discarded.
( 9 ) ATUL Kumar, P. W. 2, stated that his Titus watch was also taken away by the miscreants but no such watch was recovered from the appellant. It is also clear from his statement that after having a look at the accused persons present in Court he admitted that they were not amongst the miscreants. He also admitted that he could not say as to whom he had identified in jail. He further admitted in cross-examination that in the jail he had identified
