Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Umesh Chandra Sharma, JJ.
State of U.P. – Appellant
Versus
Devendra and Others - Respondents
Government Appeal No. 1075 of 1990
Decided On : 14-07-2023
Government Appeal - Criminal Law - Sections 392/411, 120-B IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the legal provisions under Section 392 IPC related to robbery and the evidence required to prove the offence. It also considered Section 120-B IPC regarding criminal conspiracy and the requirement of proving a conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the importance of quality of evidence over the quantity of witnesses in a criminal trial.
Fact of the Case:
The informant, Bhagwat Singh, was robbed of a significant amount of money at gunpoint. The trial court acquitted the accused persons based on various grounds including lack of public witnesses, failure to explain the informant's visit to a relative's house, and absence of evidence of conspiracy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the informant, supported by the recovery of the robbed items, was sufficient to prove the case against two of the accused persons. However, it concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the conspiracy charge against the third accused.
Issues: The issues included the sufficiency of evidence, the absence of public witnesses, the informant's conduct, and the failure to prove conspiracy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity of witnesses in a criminal trial. It also highlighted the need to prove a conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt and the privilege of communication between an informer and the police.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed in respect of two accused persons and partly dismissed with regard to the third accused. The court upheld the acquittal of the third accused due to lack of evidence of conspiracy. Non-bailable warrants were issued for the two accused persons who were absent from the court.
JUDGMENT :
Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.
1. This Government Appeal has been preferred by the State to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.01.1990 passed by the Additional Munsif Magistrate-IV, Bulandshahar in Criminal Case No.1288 of 1987 (New Criminal Case No.419 of 1989), under Sections 392/411, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar by which the accused persons (respondent nos.1, 2 and 3) had been acquitted from the charges under Section 392 IPC.
2. In brief, facts of the case are that on 03.10.1985 the informant, Bhagwat Singh from PHC Unchagaon, Bulandshahar took out Rs.29,965.40/-as salary of his departmental employees from the State Bank, Bulandshahar, kept the same in a leather bag and after parking the cycle at Mr. Dalmore's house in Village Hirapur, keeping the alleged bag in his hand walked away towards Bus Stand, Jahangirabad. At about 20-25 steps away from the said house at 02:00 p.m., accused Amarnath @ Pappu, Devendra @ Dablu riding on a Vicky Moped motorcycle without number plate, met with him and snatched the bag from his hand on the gun point in which there were Rs.29,965.40/-, a treasury register and other papers. The informant produced a written complaint Ex.Ka-1 at the Chowki, Nai Mandi, Bulandshahar on which basis chik FIR Ex.Ka-5 was prepared under Section 392 IPC. After investigation charge sheet was submitted, charge was framed under Section 392 IPC against the accused persons who denied the charge and sought for trial.
3. Following witnesses have been examined by the prosecution:-
| 1 | PW-1 | Bhagwat Singh (informant) |
| 2 | PW-2 | Jagroop (independent witness who turned hostile) |
| 3 | PW-3 | Mahendra Singh Chauhan, Sub-Inspector Police Station Kotwali, Bulandshahar |
| 4 | PW-4 | Rajendra Singh Chaudhary, Sub-Inspector Police Station Vannadevi, Aligarh |
4. Following documentary evidences have been examined by the prosecution:-
| 1 | Ex.Ka-1 | Written Complaint |
| 2 | Ex.Ka-2 | Chik FIR, recovery memo of Goods and Moped and entries in bill register |
| 3 | Ex.Ka-3 | Site Plan with Index and list of payment of staff |
| 4 | Ex.Ka-4 | Site Plan with Index, |
| 5 | Ex.Ka-5 | Letter to branch manager, SBI, paper regarding payment of pay money to the informant from bank |
| 6 | Ex.Ka-6 | Chik FIR and charge sheet |
| 7 | Ex.Ka-7 | Carbon copy GD and pass-book |
| 8 | Ex.Ka-8 | Notes |
| 9 | Ex.Ka-9 and 10 | Truss of the clothes |
5. Material Exhibits
| 1 | M.Ex-1 | Bag |
| 2 | M.Ex-2 | Treasury register |
| 3 | M.Ex-3 | Salary particulars |
| 4 | M.Ex-4 | Letter |
| 5 | M.Ex-5 and 18 | Moped and paper |
| 6 | M.Ex-6-7 | Seals |
| 8 | M.Ex-8-15 | Bundle of notes |
| 9 | M.Ex-16-17 | Truss made of clothes |
6. In brief, oral evidences of the prosecution witnesses are as follows:-
6.1. PW-1, informant – Bhagwat Singh stated on oath that on 03.10.1985 he was posted as Accounts Clerk in Uchagaon PHC. He had gone to the State Bank of India to collect the salary of the employees. He had received salary amounting Rs.30,865.40/-out of which he had deposited Rs.900/-in his and his wife's personal account. Remaining amount Rs.29,965.40/-which was kept in the alleged bag walked through bicycle towards the bus stand and parked it at the house of Dalmor Singh of Village Hirapur and walked back on foot with the alleged bag in his hand towards the bus stand. He would have hardly walked about 20-25 steps, the accused persons namely Amarnath @ Pappu (present in the court), Devendra @ Dablu (not present in the court) and Mahendra Singh (present in the court) met and stopped him and forcibly snatched the bag on the gun point. Thereafter he made-a-noise upon which the witnesses Dalmor Singh, Jagroop Singh, Kailash and Sardar etc. reached there and tried to catch the accused persons. The accused ran away towards Syana Road riding on Vicky brandishing the pistol. Apart from the money in the bag, there was a treasury
The quality of evidence is crucial in a criminal trial, and the prosecution must prove a conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt.
In appeals against acquittal, the burden of proof remains with the prosecution, and an acquittal should be upheld if any plausible view supports the trial court's decision.
Revisional jurisdiction narrowly limited; no reappreciation of evidence absent perversity in concurrent findings. Related witness testimony reliable if credible. No need for independent witnesses in ....
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete and conclusive chain pointing to the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not established in this case.
Convictions under Section 302 of IPC require corroborative evidence, and in the absence of reliable evidence, guilt cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt.
(1) Burden of proof lies on parties who substantially asserts affirmative of issue and not upon party who denies it – In criminal cases it is for prosecution to bring guilt home to accused.(2) About ....
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of events in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasona....
A conviction cannot be sustained on mere suspicion; evidence must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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
