Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 1304

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Nankau And Another – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1067 of 2010
Decided on : 10-10-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Pradeep Kumar Singh, Anshubhan Singh, Manish Bajpai
For the Respondent: Anil Pratap Singh, Sunil Kumar Singh

The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of presumption of innocence, the duty of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the careful examination of witness testimony to separate truth from falsehood.

Headnote:
Presumption of Innocence - Criminal Appeal - Section 323, 504, 506(2) I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of S.C./S.T. Act - The court discussed the principle of presumption of innocence and the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove guilt. It highlighted the importance of separating reliable and unreliable witness testimony and emphasized that the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has no application in India. The court also emphasized the need for careful examination of interested witnesses' testimony and the duty of the court to separate truth from falsehood.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted and sentenced for assaulting the complainant and others. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of interested witnesses and the medical report of the injured persons.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the trial court erred in passing the judgment and order, as it overlooked material evidence and drew unreasonable conclusions. The court concluded that the appellants were acquitted of all charges and their personal and surety bonds were canceled.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of witness testimony, the principle of presumption of innocence, and the duty of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of carefully examining witness testimony, separating reliable and unreliable evidence, and the duty of the court to intervene when necessary for the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellants were set aside and reversed. The appellants were acquitted of all charges, and their personal and surety bonds were canceled.

JUDGMENT :

1. List of cases has been revised and the case is being taken up in the revised call for hearing.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of the appellants against the order dated 26.03.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Room No.VI, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.1216 of 1999, Crime No.77/1998, Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow (State Vs. Nankau & Another), convicting and sentencing the appellants for rigorous imprisonment of six months under Section 323 I.P.C., one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 504 I.P.C., two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 506(2) I.P.C. and two years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.500/-(in default three months rigorous imprisonment) under Section 3(1)(X) S.C./S.T. Act.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 06.03.1998, the complainant Ram Dulare submitted a written report in Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow, wherein it had been stated that on the date of incident at about 08:00 A.M., when the complainant was standing at his door, the accused appellants came to his door. The complainant asked them why they had lodged a case in Court as he was not having any dispute. On hearing this, the accused persons started abusing him in filthy languages and when the complainant forbade them not to abuse, the accused persons had beaten the complainant with lathi and danda. On being beaten, the complainant shouted and made hue and cries. On listing the hue and cries made by the complainant, the neighbors, Shyam Lal, Chunna and Hashim arrived at the spot of incident, who tried to save the complainant but the accused persons had beaten them also. Thereafter, when other persons started to rescue them, the accused fled away by giving threats that they will kill the complainant.

5. On the basis of written report, submitted by the first informant, the first information report was lodged as Case Crime No.77 of 1998, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of S.C./S.T. Act at Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow.

6. The case was handed over to Investigating Officer, who visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of the witnesses and prepared the site plan and after completing the investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the appellants under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of S.C./S.T. Act.

7. On the basis of Charge-sheet appellant-accused were summoned by the Court and charges were framed against them under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of S.C./S.T. Act. The appellants-accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

8. Prosecution in order to substantiate the charges against appellants-accused examined Ram Dulare, the complainant as P.W.-1, Shyam Lal, the injured and eye witness as P.W.-2, Hashim, the injured and eye witness as P.W.-3, Constable Munni Lal, scribe of written report as P.W.-4, I.O. Virendra Pratap Singh as P.W.-5 and Dr. M.N. Siddiqui, who examined the injured persons as P.W.-6.

9. After closing of the evidence, statement of accused/appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the trial court explaining the entire evidence and other circumstances, in which the appellants denied the prosecution story and the entire prosecution story was said to be wrong and concocted.

10. No witness in defence was adduced by the accused persons before the trial court.

11. After having heard the rival submissions of parties, the Trial Court found appellants-accused guilty, therefore, convicted and sentenced them for rigorous imprisonment of six months under Section 323 I.P.C., one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 504 I.P.C., two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 506(2) I.P.C. and two years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.500/-(in default three months rigorous imprisonment) under Section 3(1)(X) S.C./S.T. Act.