Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ram Krishna Gautam, J.
Arvind Parmar @ Bunty Raja And Others - Appellant
Vs.
State Of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5242 of 2018
Decided On : 01-10-2019
Cr.P.C. - Criminal Appeal - Sections 457, 380, 411, 413 of IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for theft under Sections 457, 380, 411, and 413 of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that stolen articles were recovered from the appellants, but the defense argued that the evidence was based on surmises and conjectures.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of theft and possession of stolen property against the appellants. The testimonies of the witnesses were contradictory and unreliable, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Issues: The issues revolved around the lack of concrete evidence to establish the commission of theft and possession of stolen property by the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution must substantiate charges with concrete evidence and that mere possession of alleged stolen articles is not sufficient to establish guilt. The court also highlighted the importance of specific identification and corroboration of evidence.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, the judgment of conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT :
Ram Krishna Gautam, J.
This Appeal, under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (In short hereinafter referred to as ''Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by the convict-appellants, Arvind Parmar @ Bunty Raja, Rajan @ Rajendra, and Raheem Khan, against the judgment of conviction, dated 30.07.2018 and sentences awarded therein, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (U.P. Dacoity Affected Area), Lalitpur, in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2013 (State vs. Arvind Parmar @ Bunty Raja and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1612 of 2012, under Sections 457,380,411,413 of Indian Penal Code (Hereinafter in short referred to as ''IPC'), Police Station- Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur, whereby convict-appellants, Arvind Parmar @ Bunty Raja, Rajan @ Rajendra and Raheem Khan, have been sentenced with seven years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, each, under Section 380 IPC, twelve years' rigorous imprisonment, with fine of Rs.20,000/-, each, under Section 457 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment of three years, with fine of Rs.5,000/-, each, under Section 411 of IPC. In case of default of deposit of fine of Rs.20,000/-, they will have to serve one year's additional simple imprisonment, in case of default of deposit of fine of Rs.10,000/-, they will have to serve six months' additional simple imprisonment and in case of default of deposit of fine of Rs.5,000/-, they will have to undergo three months additional simple imprisonment, with a further direction for concurrent running of sentences and adjustment of previous incarceration, if any, in this very case crime number, with this contention that the Trial court failed to appreciate facts and law placed before it and the judgment of conviction and sentence, awarded, therein, is illegal, perverse and against the weight of evidence on record. It was passed on the basis of surmises and conjectures.
2. The occurrence of theft had been said to have taken place in the night of 10.08.2012 and a first information report was lodged on 12.8.2012, as Case Crime No.1612 of 2012, under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali, Lalitpur, District Lalitpur. Subsequently, arrest of Arvind Parmar @ Bunty Raja, appellant no.1, Jeetu Parihar, Rajan, appellant no.2, and Naval Ahirwar, was shown to have been made by the Police on 14.8.2012, whereas Shivam Tiwari, Arvind Pal and Raheem Khan, appellant no.3, said to have fled from the spot. Recovery of golden ornaments and cash, was said to have been made from joint possession of arrested accused persons. Though the occurrence was said to have occurred on 10.08.2012, but first information report was lodged on 12.8.2012. PW-2, S.I. Man Singh, had stated that the arrest of appellant nos. 1 and 2 was made on 14.8.2012 and alleged recovery was said to have been made from them, while appellant no.3 was said to be absconded, whereas, it was a false recovery and false implication. Hence, this Criminal Appeal with above prayer.
3. Heard Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA, appearing for the State and gone through the impugned judgement as well as record of the Trial court.
4. From very perusal of the record, it is apparent that the First Information Report, Exhibit Ka-1, dated 12.08.2012, was got lodged by the informant, Kalyan, at Police Station-Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur, with this contention that while, on 10.8.2012, he was away from his home, in connection with some urgent work, keeping his house lock, in the night, occurrence of theft, by unknown thieves, took place, by breaking lock and anklet of silver, weight 500 gm, Kardhna of silver (an ornament of waist for woman), weight 500 gm, and Rs.5,000/-, in cash, were stolen, and other household goods were scattered here and there.
5. On 14.8.2012, while SOG Incharge, Sumit Kumar Singh, alongwith his Police Team, was on surveillance duty, informer gave information about presence of thieves, who have committed various thefts in t
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
