Back
2023 Supreme(UK) 390
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Sunil and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 212, 214, 215, 216 of 2008
Decided On : 24-04-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Bhuwnesh Joshi.
For the Respondents: S.S. Adhikari, B.S. Thind.
The prosecution must prove the essential elements of charged offences beyond reasonable doubt, and material contradictions in witness statements can lead to the benefit of doubt for the accused.
Headnote:
Robbery - Criminal Appeals - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 398, 401, Arms Act, 1959 - 398, 401 IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 398, 401 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution's case was based on a raid where the accused persons were apprehended with weapons and tools for theft.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt. Material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution's witnesses led to a lack of confidence in the evidence. As a result, the appellants were acquitted of all charges and their bail bonds were cancelled.
Issues: The issues revolved around the evidence presented by the prosecution and the fulfillment of the essential elements of the charged offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the prosecution to establish the essential elements of the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt. Material contradictions in witness statements and lack of reliable evidence led to the benefit of doubt being given to the appellants.
Final Decision: The court acquitted all the appellants of the charges under Sections 398, 401 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, and cancelled their bail bonds.
JUDGMENT :
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
1. These four Criminal Appeals have been filed by the appellants against a common judgment dated 30.07.2008, passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Champawat in Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2007, State vs. Haseeba and Others, Sessions Trial No. 11 of 2007, State vs. Akram Khan, Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2007, State vs. Madan Singh and Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2007, State vs. Sarwar.
2. Appellants Sunil, Sarwar, Akram Khan and Madan Singh have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Sections 398, 401 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) in Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2007. Appellants Akram Khan, Madan Singh and Sarwar have been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 2007, Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2007 and Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2007 respectively. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. These Criminal Appeals are connected appeals, therefore, these appeals are being decided by this common judgment. Criminal Appeal No. 212 of 2008 will be treated as a leading case.
4. Briefly stated the prosecution case as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidence on record is that in the intervening night of 30.11.2006/ 01.12.2006, Sub-Inspector Bhagwati Prasad Bisht (PW1), Sub-Inspector Bhuwan Chandra Chandola (PW2), HCP Girish Chandra Bhatt (PW3) and other police personnel were on patrolling duty. When they reached near Deepak Tyre Works Shop, light was seen in the back gallery of that shop. Some persons were talking among themselves. The police party saw that six-seven persons were sitting in the gallery. One of them was saying that now everyone has gone to sleep, so they break the lock of the shop and take out the goods from the safe. A raid was conducted. Appellants-accused persons along with co-accused persons were apprehended at 02:15 hrs. Their personal search were conducted. Five different types of keys (Material Ext. 8) and a half burnt candle (Material Ext. 9) from the possession of appellant-accused Sunil, a knife (Material Ext. 4) from the possession of appellant-accused Sarwar, a khukri, a sharp edged weapon (Material Ext. 5) from the possession of appellant-accused Akram Khan and a knife (Material Ext. 2) from the possession of appellant-accused Madan Singh were recovered. A knife each was recovered from the possession of co-accused Haseeba and Sachin Kumar and a iron rod was recovered from the possession of Rashid. The recovered articles were sealed. These articles were taken into possession vide Recovery Memo (Ext. Ka2). A Memo of Arrest of the accused persons (Ext. Ka1) was prepared. In spite of an endeavour, no public witness could be secured. An FIR (Ext. Ka4) was lodged by Sub-Inspector Bhagwati Prasad Bisht (PW1). Charge-sheets against accused persons Haseeba, Sachin Kumar, Sarwar, Madan Singh, Akram Khan and Sunil were filed after completion of investigation.
5. Charges under Sections 398, 401 IPC were framed against all the accused persons. Apart from these charges, charge under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 was also framed against the accused Akram Khan, Madan Singh and Sarwar. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution examined four witnesses.
7. (PW1) Sub-Inspector Bhagwati Prasad Bisht, (PW2) Sub-Inspector Bhuwan Chandra Chandola, (PW3) HCP Girish Chandra Bhatt were members of the raiding party. (PW4) Sub-Inspector Harish Chandra Joshi is Investigating Officer.
8. Statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. Accused persons denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution.
9. Appellant - Sunil has examined (DW1) Sharif Khan in his defence evidence.
10. Learned Trial Court heard the arguments, appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned judgment, by whic
