Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.
Arvind Parmar and Ors - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5206 of 2018
Decided On : 30-08-2019
CRIMINAL APPEAL - Conviction under Sections 457, 380, 411, 413 and 511 of IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 457, 380, 411, 413 and 511 of IPC - The court discussed the legal provisions of Section 457 and 380 of IPC, emphasizing the essential ingredients for the offences and the burden of proof required for conviction. The court highlighted the lack of evidence to establish lurking house-trespass or house breaking by the appellants, and the failure to prove theft or the intention to commit theft. The judgment of conviction and sentences were set aside due to the failure to appreciate the facts and law presented before the court.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the judgment of conviction and sentences awarded to the convict-appellants for offences under Sections 457, 380, 411, 413 and 511 of IPC. The case involved the alleged theft of cash and recovery of stolen articles from the appellants. The prosecution's case relied on the recovery of stolen articles and the confession of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. It highlighted the lack of evidence to establish lurking house-trespass or house breaking by the appellants, and the failure to prove theft or the intention to commit theft. The judgment of conviction and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the lack of evidence to establish the essential elements of the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC, and the failure to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving lurking house-trespass or house breaking for conviction under Section 457 of IPC, and the essential ingredients for the offence under Section 380 of IPC. It highlighted the burden of proof required for conviction and the lack of evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal succeeded, and the judgment of conviction and sentences were set aside. The appellants were acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. They were also directed to furnish a personal bond and sureties in compliance with section 437-A Cr. P.C.
ORDER :
RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.
1. 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 20.07.2018 and sentences awarded therein, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (U.P. Dacoity Affected Area), Lalitpur, in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 2013 (State vs. Arvind Parmar @ Bunty and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1613 of 2012, under Sections 457, 380, 411, 413 and 511 of Indian Penal Code (Hereinafter in short referred to as 'IPC'), Police Station-Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur, whereby convict-appellants, Arvind Parmar @ Bunty, Rajan @ Rajendra and Rahim Khan have been sentenced with five years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, each, under Section 380 IPC, and Ten years' rigorous imprisonment, with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, each, under Section 457 IPC. In case of default of deposit of fine of Rs. 10,000, they will have to serve one year's simple imprisonment and in default of deposit of fine of Rs. 5,000/-, they will have to serve six months' simple imprisonment, with 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 conjunctures.
2. The occurrence had been said to have taken place in the night of 8.8.2012 and a first information report was lodged on 9.8.2012 as Case Crime No. 1613 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 Rs. 27,00/-, in cash, was said to have been made from joint possession of arrested accused persons. Though the occurrence was said to have occurred 8.8.2012, and first information report was lodged on 9.8.2012. PW-4, Subhash Chandra, 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 judgment 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-2, dated 9.8.2012, was got lodged by the informant, Smt. Gita, at Police Station-Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur, with this contention that in the evening of 8.8.2012, after putting lock on her Beauty Parlour, she went to her home and next day, i.e., 9.8.2019, she got an information that lock of the shop was broken. After reaching on the shop, she had seen broken lock of the door of the shop and when she entered into the shop, she found that Rs. 27,00/-, cash, kept in her Gullak (Piggy Bank), has been stolen. She got the report written by her husband and presented the same at Police Station Kotwali, Lalitpur, which has been registered. Case Crime No. 1613 of 2012, under Sections 457 & 380 IPC was got registered against unknown thieves on 9.8.2012.
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 the city, with stolen articles,
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
