Back
2014 Supreme(All) 382
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Vijay Lakshmi, J.
Lakchandra and others Revisionists -Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh -Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1424 of 2006
Decided On : 14-02-2014
Counsel for the Revisionist : A.R.B. Kher, ML. Jain and S.P.S. Rathi.
Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A.
The burden of proving the case against the accused is always on the prosecution, and the prosecution must stand on its own legs.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision - Conviction under Section 427 and 506 IPC - [Sections 427, 506 IPC] - The court discussed the delay in lodging the FIR, the credibility of witnesses, and the burden of proof on the prosecution. The judgment highlighted the basic legal principle that the burden of proving the case against the accused is always on the prosecution, irrespective of the defense's plausibility. The court relied on the landmark judgment of Gurucharan Singh vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1956 SC 460) to emphasize this principle.
Fact of the Case:
An FIR was lodged against the accused for demolishing a wall and causing monetary loss to the informant. The lower courts convicted the accused, which was challenged in the criminal revision on grounds of delay in lodging the FIR, unreliable witnesses, and false implication due to enmity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in lodging the FIR raised doubts about the prosecution's case. It emphasized the burden of proof on the prosecution and the need for the prosecution to stand on its own legs. The court also noted that the lower court's reliance on the defense's failure to prove the disputed wall's demolition by the administration was erroneous.
Issues: Delay in lodging the FIR, credibility of witnesses, burden of proof, reliance on defense's failure to prove the case
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proving the case against the accused is always on the prosecution, and the prosecution must stand on its own legs. The delay in lodging the FIR raised doubts about the prosecution's case, and the reliance on the defense's failure to prove the case was erroneous.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the order of the lower court was set aside. The revisionists were not required to surrender, and their bail bonds were discharged.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 7.3.2006 passed by Addl Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2001 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, partly dismissed the appeal of the revisionists and convicted them under Section 427 with simple imprisonment of three months and fine of Rs.500/- each and under Section 506 IPC with simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.1000/- each.
2. The appeal before the Sessions Judge was preferred against the judgement and order dated 29.3.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate-II Meerut in Criminal Case No.798 of 2004. Hence, this revision.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State and have perused the records.
4. Some background facts in brief are that on 26.6.1998 at about 6:30 p.m. an FIR was lodged at Police Station Jani, District Meerut, mentioning therein that on 6.6.1998 at about 12:00 p.m., the accused Naresh, Lakchandra, Sheesh Pal, and Surendra started demolishing the wall of informant. When informant tried to stop them they started abusing him and threatened to kill him. After that accused persons totally demolished the wall, due to which the informant had to suffer monetary loss of Rs.25,000/-. The occurrence was witnessed by Rampal, Kripal and Hardan Singh etc.
5. On the basis of this information, a criminal case under Sections 427, 504, 506 IPC was instituted before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Meerut. The Court of Judicial Magistrate-II Meerut framed charges under sections 427, 504, 506 IPC against the accused persons, recorded the evidence of witnesses and after conclusion of trial, convicted and sentenced each of the revisionists for six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- under section 427 IPC and for one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 506 of IPC.
6. Against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, the accused persons preferred criminal appeal which was heard by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Meerut. The Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and confirmed the judgement of the lower court by maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Sections 427 and 506 IPC only but imposing a lesser punishment to all the accused as is mentioned in the earlier part of the judgement.
7. The aforesaid order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, has been challenged in this criminal revision on the grounds that the order impugned is illegal and improper, against the evidence on record so it is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the revisionists has vehemently argued that the First Information Report is highly doubtful. There is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The occurrence is said to be of 6.6.1998 and the FIR of the same is of 26.6.1998 whereas distance from the place of occurrence and Police Station is only 7 kms, still both the courts below while appreciating the evidence, available on record, ignored this vital aspect of the matter. There is no reliable evidence against the revisionists. PW1-Kripal and PW2-Hardan Singh both have not supported the prosecution story. The remaining witnesses are highly interested witnesses but the learned lower Courts have wrongly placed reliance on their testimony without any close scrutiny.
8. It has been further argued by learned counsel for the revisionists that from the side of accused persons two witnesses were produced in defence as DW1 and DW2. But both the courts below acted illegally by ignoring and not relying on their statements. Learned counsel has submitted that the revisionists have been falsely implicated due to enmity. In fact, the revisionists had earlier made a complaint against the informant who had illegally constructed a wall on the land which was recorded as pond in the revenue records. Due to this enmity the informant has filed this criminal case against the revisionists. The dispute between the parties was of civil natu
