Criminal prosecutions require proof beyond reasonable doubt, and unexplained delays in FIR filing coupled with absence of independent witnesses can result in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

1. Present Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as “Cr.P.C.) against the judgment and order dated 28.8.1982 passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.)/Additional Sessions Judge, Lalitpur in Special Case No. 31 of 1982, whereby trial court convicted the appellants under Section 393 , I.P.C. read with Section 12 of U.P. Dacoity Affected Area Ordinance, 1982 and sentenced them 3 years rigorous imprisonment each, however, trial court acquitted the appellants under Section 25 (b)(4) of ARMS ACT .

2. Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 29.12.1981 has been registered against the appellants and unknown persons stating that when the first informant was on the way of village Bairwara at 9.00 p.m. near the Mission hospital, three assailants came and threatened him with dire consequences after showing the knives and attempted to robbery with him. On his crying 4-5 police personnels came and arrested two persons out of three assailants. The appellants have been arrested by the police at the place of incident.

3. The F.I.R. (Ex- Ka-3) was lodged at 22.30 p.m. on 29.12.1981 (which was registered within about 1-1/2 hour of the incident) against the appellants and the police party prior to lodging of F.I.R. prepared two recovery memos as Ex- Ka-1 and Ex- Ka-2 of illegal knives from the possession of appellants. After completing the investigation, charge sheets have been submitted against the appellants under Section 393 , I.P.C. and Section 25 /4 of ARMS ACT , separately as Ex- Ka-7, Ex- Ka-8 and Ex- Ka-9.

4. Being the Special Case, which is triable by the Special Judge of D.A.A., charge has been framed on 29.5.1982 under Sections 393 , I.P.C. read with Section 12 of D.A.A. and Section 25 (b)(4) of ARMS ACT against the appellants and they denied the charges.

5. The Prosecution has examined as many as four witnesses namely, PW- 1, S.I. Surjan Singh, (who prepared recovery memo, Ex- Ka-1 and Ex- Ka- 2), PW-2, H.C. 3, Naresh Singh (Scribe, who proved chik F.I.R. and G.D. Rapat as Ex- Ka-3 and Ex- Ka-4) PW-3, S.I. P.N. Tripathi (Investigating Officer) and PW-4 Munna Lal (first informant).

6. After examination of prosecution witnesses, trial court recorded the statements of the present appellants under Section 313 , Cr.P.C. wherein they stated that they have been implicated due to enmity with the local police and they stated that they have been taken into custody from Station Lalitpur. However, the appellants have not produced any evidence in defence.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants argued before the trial court that they have been implicated by the local police due to enmity and the prosecution has totally failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants.

8. The trial court observed that the first informant has no enmity with the appellant Munna Lal, so as to why he has been implicated in the present case, in this regard no question has been asked in his cross examination. The police reached at the place of incident on crying of the first informant and the police caught the appellants after chasing 40-45 paces. The prosecution successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants on the basis of evidence of PW-4 Munna Lal and proved the charges under Section 393 , I.P.C. read with Section 12 of U.P. Dacoity Affected Area Ordinance, 1982 and convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 393 , I.P.C. read with Section 12 of U.P. Dacoity Affected Area Ordinance,