Back
2022 Supreme(All) 996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
Mohan Lal And Another – Appellants
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 436 of 1991
Decided on : 09-09-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : B.N. Rai,Prabhat Kumar, Siddharth Niranjan
The duty of the prosecution to prove its case, the significance of corroboration of inimical witness testimony, and the fatal impact of delayed FIR and discrepancies in the prosecution's case.
Headnote:
394 IPC - Criminal Appeal - Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the prosecution story based on the FIR, examination of witnesses, and the rival contentions presented by the defense and the prosecution. Key legal provisions such as the testimony of inimical witnesses, rule of corroboration, and the duty of the prosecution to prove its case were highlighted and influenced the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 394 IPC for a robbery incident based on a delayed FIR, enmity between the parties, and lack of recovery of stolen property. The defense raised concerns about the delayed FIR, lack of recovery, and contradictions in witness statements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delayed FIR, enmity between the parties, lack of recovery, and discrepancies in the prosecution's case vitiated the trial. The court concluded that the judgment and order of the Trial Court were devoid of merits and set it aside, allowing the appeal and canceling the bail bonds of the appellants.
Issues: Delayed FIR, enmity between parties, lack of recovery, discrepancies in witness statements, and lethargic investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of corroboration of inimical witness testimony, the duty of the prosecution to prove its case, and the fatal impact of delayed FIR and discrepancies in the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment and order were set aside, and the appellants were not required to surrender.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Dharam Pal Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Niranjan, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Vinod Kumar Singh Parmar, learned AGA for the State.
2. Present Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by accused-appellants Mohan Lal and Sanjay Kumar against the judgment and order dated 5.3.1991 passed by Special Judge, D.A.A. Kanpur Dehat in Special Sessions Trial No.33 of 1990 (State Vs. Mohan Lal and Another), whereby accused-appellants were convicted u/s 394 IPC and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment.
PROSECUTION STORY:
3. On the basis of written report dated 29.9.1989 (Ex.Ka-1), an FIR was lodged by informant Pratap Singh s/o Raghuveer Singh with the allegation that in the night of 28/29.9.1989 at about 11:45 PM, when the informant was sleeping along with his family members in his house, four miscreants are stated to have climbed up to the roof of his house and started stealing the articles. Two of the miscreants are stated to have taken the boxes of his daughter-in-law with them to the roof of the house and the other two miscreants were in the courtyard of the house. The informant and the inmates woke up on hearing the noise and one of the miscreants at the roof is stated to have thrown bricks upon the informant injuring him on his head. Two miscreants i.e. the appellants herein were apprehended in the courtyard itself by the informant with the help of his sons and people of locality, namely, Dharam Pal, Madan Singh, Chatrapal Singh etc. A list of the looted articles was also given by the informant.
The FIR of the said incident was lodged by the informant at the Police Station Gajner, Kanpur Dehat on the very next date i.e. 08:30 AM and had taken the two apprehended accused persons to the police station along with him.
4. The arrested accused persons were kept in the hawalat in the police station and a quilt was provided to them. Investigation was taken up by S.I. Jagroop Singh who after recording the statement of the witnesses, preparing the site plan etc., filed a charge-sheet against the appellants u/s 394 IPC.
TRIAL
5. During trial, the prosecution chose to examine the two witnesses of fact i.e. PW-1 Pratap Singh and PW-2 Dhirendra. The Investigating Officer S.I. Jagroop Singh was examined as PW-3.
6. PW-1 Pratap Singh has corroborated the prosecution story as per the FIR and has stated that the appellants were caught by him and other inmates of the family with the help of other members of the locality. He has also stated that there was an enmity between the appellants and the informant as the appellants belong to the group of the present Gram Pradhan and the informant belong to the other party opposed to the Gram Pradhan. He has proved the written report as Ex.Ka-1.
7. PW-2 Dhirendra is the son of the informant. He has corroborated the prosecution story but has also admitted the fact that there was an enmity between the informant and appellants.
8. PW-3 S.I. Jagroop Singh has proved other documents although Constable Amar Singh is their scribe i.e. FIR and G.D. of institution of FIR i.e. G.D. No.15/8:30 AM dated 29.9.1989. The formal proof of the injury report was dispensed with by the defense counsel so it also stood proved. The charge-sheet was exhibited as Ex.Ka-4 and the injury report dated 30.9.1989 at 11:30 AM was exhibited as Ex.Ka-5.
9. The statement of the accused-appellants was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which both the accused persons have stated that they have been falsely implicated due to previous enmity between the parties as the appellants were ardent supporters of the present Gram Pradhan.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS
10. At the outset, Sri Dharam Pal Singh, learned Senior Counsel has stated that the FIR is delayed by about 9 hours and there is no explanation of said delay. It is an admitted fact as it transpires from the statement of PW-1 that the police station is 8 kilometers away from the place of occurrence and the inordinate delay
