Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
H.C.Mittal
GAYA PRASAD
Versus
STATE
Decided On : 27 February 1989
Cri. Appeal No. 844 of 1979
CRIMINAL LAW - DACOITY - SECTION 396, I. P. C. - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - RELIABILITY - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - CORROBORATION - BURDEN OF PROOF - DOUBT - BENEFIT OF DOUBT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Chakki, was convicted under Section 396, I. P. C. for his involvement in a dacoity. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with other accused, had committed dacoity at the house of Hori Lal, resulting in his death and injuries to his wife and daughter. The appellant denied the charges and claimed false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution evidence against the appellant was not reliable and free from suspicion. The identification of the appellant by the prosecution witnesses was doubtful, and the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to corroborate the identification. The court also noted that the appellant had been apprehended even before the lodging of the F. I. R., which further raised doubts about the genuineness of the prosecution case.
Issues: 1. Whether the identification of the appellant by the prosecution witnesses was reliable? 2. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to corroborate the identification? 3. Whether the appellant had been apprehended even before the lodging of the F. I. R.?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the identification of the appellant by the prosecution witnesses was doubtful. The witnesses had claimed to have recognized the appellant in the light of torches and fire, but the court noted that some of the dacoits had covered their faces, and the appellant was not specifically seen carrying any weapon or playing any active role in the dacoity. 2. The court held that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to corroborate the identification. The court noted that the prosecution version of the incident was inconsistent with the medical evidence, and the evidence regarding the burning of a heap of karab to provide light was contradictory. 3. The court held that the appellant had been apprehended even before the lodging of the F. I. R. The court noted that the appellant was arrested along with other accused on the same day as the dacoity, but the F. I. R. was not lodged until the following morning.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 396, I. P. C. The court held that the evidence against the appellant was not free from suspicion and that he was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
The above named appellants preferred this appeal against their conviction and sentence under Section 396, I. P. C. to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 each passed by Sri B. P. Mahrotra, IV Addl. Session Judge, Mainpuri on 1st March, 1979.
2. The facts of the case in brief according to the prosecution are that the dacoity had taken place at the house of Hori Lal in village Nagla Hari Ram, P. S. Kotwali, district Mainpuri in the night between 31st December, 1975 and 1st January, 1976 wherein Hori Lal had been murdered while his wife Scot.
Phulmati and daughter Smt. Premwati (PW 1) had received injuries. Written report of the occurrence (Ex. Ka-1) is alleged to have been lodged in the morning of 1st March, 1976 at 6-40 a. m. by PW Phulan Singh, husband of Smt. Premwati and son-in-law of the deceased Hori Lai, on the basis of which case was register ed and investigation started. In the F. I. R. . six accused, namely Chakki, Vijai Ram, Gaya Prasad, Panna Lal, Ram Dayal and Subedar were named. Besides that presence of several other unknown dacoits was alleged. Out of them nine accused, namely, Gaya Prasad, Ram Dayal, Subedar, Chakki, Raja Ram, Maharaj Singh, Ganga Ram, Lala Ram and Matadeen were arrested on 1st March, 1976 by PW 13 S. I. Jagdish Prasad Goswami near a brick-kiln (Bhatta) at about 8-30 p. m. and from them looted properties (Ex. 1 to 43) were also re covered. The accused were made in pardah and thereafter the unknown accused were put up for identification. Accused Vijai Ram appears to have been subsequently arrested. All the ten accused were subsequently committed to the Court of Sessions. They were charged under Sections 412 and 396, I. P. C. to which they pleaded not guilty. At the trial the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses, of whom PW 1 Phulan Singh is the complainant, PW 2 Smt. Premwati, PW 3 Tej Singh, PW 4 Sri Ram, PW 9 Jaiveer Singh and PW 11 Durgai are the other eye- witnesses of the occurrence. PW 5 Ram Swaroop had accompanied the police party when the nine accused were apprehended PW 6 Sri Krishna is the S. D. M. who had conducted the test identification parade of the accused and that of the property recovered. PW 13 J. P. Goswami had apprehended the nine accused as stated above and recovered the properties from their possession. PW 12 Sri Jambu Singh was S. H. O. , Mainpuri and had conducted the investigation of the case. The remanding are the formal witnesses. That apart the prosecution also tendered in evidence the following documents, genuineness of which was duly admitted by the defence :
(1) Inquest report of Hori Lal dated 1. 1. 76 marked as Ex. Ka. 25.
(2) Injury report of Premwati dated 1-1-76 marked as Ex. Ka. 26.
(3) Injury report of Phoolmati dated 1-1-76 marked as Ex. Ka. 27.
(4) Post-mortem report of the dead-body of Hori Lal dated 1-1-76 marked as Ex. Ka. 28.
(5) Sketch of dead-body dated 1-1-76 marked as Ex. Ka. 29.
(6) Letter to C. M. O. dated 1-1-76 marked as Ex. Ka. 30.
(7) Challan dead-body marked as Ex. Ka-31.
3. The version of the accused has been of total denial and false implica tion. It was alleged that they had been apprehended from their houses even prior to the alleged time of occurrence and have been falsely roped in this case as well as in the case under Sections 399 and 402, I. P. C. The accused filed some documents in defence to show that there was enmity in between the complainant and some of the named accused.
4. The learned Sessions Judge after a consideration of the entire evidence on record disbelieved the arrest of the accused and the recovery of stolen articles from their possession as set up by the prosecution and also held doubtful presence of the named dacoits, namely, Vijai Ram, Panna Lal and Subedar. Hence acquitted seven of the accused namely, Matadeen, Subedar, Ganga Ram, Maharaj Singh, Lala Ram, Pannal Lal and Vijai Ram. The learned Sessions Judge, however, believed the participation of the present appellants Chakki, G
AI
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
