SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(All) 3444

[2009(10) ADJ 818]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : MRS. POONAM SRIVASTAV, J.
MAHENDRA SINGH AND ANOTHER .....Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
STATE OF U.P. ....Opposite Party
(Criminal Appeal No. 2840 of 1981, decided on 3rd November, 2009)

Advocates:
Counsel :
G.S. Hajela, Jeevanji Srivastava for the Appellants; A.G.A. for the Respondents.

Headnote:(Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 399 and 402—Arms Act, 1959—Section 25—Dacoity—Conviction—Sustainability of—Occurrence is alleged to have taken place at midnight—But their arrest shown on same day at place of occurrence—Trial Court concluded that no shots fired at time when accused were captured and live cartridges recovered from their possession—But firearms neither used nor any preparation was made for using them in defence—No public witnesses shown for recovery—Non-supply of recovery memo to accused—Despite allegation that accused were armed—Conviction unsustainable. [Paras 5, 13 and 14]

       Result; Appeal Allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.—The appellants namely Mahendra Singh S/o Kali Charan and Malkhan Singh S/o Phool Singh are two appellants in the instant appeal. The appellants and one another person Sahab Singh were put up for trial. Sahab Singh has been released on two years probation of good conduct on his furnishing one surety and entering into a personal bond for Rs. 1000/- (one thousand only) with an undertaking that he shall maintain peace and good conduct during the period of probation and shall appear in the Court whenever called upon to receive his sentence. Nothing is brought on record to show violation of the aforesaid restriction while he was on probation under surveillance of District Probation Officer. The other accused namely Mahendra Singh and Malkhan Singh were convicted, they preferred the instant appeal and were granted bail. Bail bonds of the appellants were cancelled by this Court on 4.8.2006. Non-bailable warrants were issued for securing and ensuring their presence but despite repeated reminders on several dates thereafter the accused have failed to appear. A direction was given to trace out the sureties but the office report dated 15.10.2009 shows that neither the sureties nor the accused could be traced. Finally Sri Jeevanji Srivastava Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae on 24.10.2009. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra was directed to ensure that if there is any property of the accused the same may be attached and sale proceeds be deposited.

2. The appeal came up for arguments today and Sri Jeevanji Srivastava Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The appellants were convicted in Sessions Trial No. 100 of 1981 sentencing them to 2 years R.I. under Section 399 I.P.C., 2 years R.I. under Section 402 I.P.C. and one year R.I. under Section 25 Arms Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the night of 16/17.9.1980 at mid night but their arrest has been shown on the same day at 12.30 O’ clock at the alleged place of occurrence. The F.I.R. was registered by the Investigating Officer Babu Lal Sharma at 4.00 a.m. on 17.9.1980. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed the F.I.R./recovery memo to demonstrate the prosecution story. According to which accused Malkhan Singh and Sahab Singh are brothers. Accused Mahendra is their maternal-uncle being the brother of their mother. In the night of 16/17.9. 1980 S.I. Babu Lal Sharma (PW-4) who was the S.O. Incharge of P.S. Narkhi, was on beat duty with constables Vir Pal Singh, Cheddi Lal Sahukar, H.C. Shiv Ratan of armed police and Vidhya Ram, Om Prakash, Ram Swarup, Banwari Lal and Raghu Raj Singh, all constables of the armed police. When they reached the bus stand of Kapawali, they found S.I. Seva Lal Yadav (PW-3) alongwith one constable Puran Singh, who were there in connection with some investigation in a criminal case, together they proceeded to Kotla-Farah Road. They had hardly covered some distance, when they saw some persons flashing their electric torches from near a Dharmshala at a distance of about 100 paces towards south of the Road. Suspecting that they were bandits assembled for the purpose of committing some crime, PW-4 divided his group of police personnels into two parties, took mutual search to ascertain that none of them was carrying any incriminating article and instructed the parties to proceed towards Dharmshala quietly. PW-3 was made leader of one of the parties and PW-4 himself took the leadership of the other. Reaching near the Dharmshal PW-4 placed his party toward its north-western flank. The other party placed itself on the south-western flank of Dharmshala. Towards the east of Dharmshala they saw as many as 9-10 persons smoking ‘Biris’ and talking among themselves. They over heard their talks. It was about mid night. The conversation over heard by PW-2 and PW-4 was to the effect that it is no use waiting for

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top