Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(UK) 527

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Bittu alias Pradeep – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Revision No.232 of 2011
Decided on : 28-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Negi

The central legal point established in the judgment is that the accused should be given the benefit of doubt if the evidence presented by the prosecution is not sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that suspicion cannot take the place of proof in a criminal trial.

Headnote:
Benefit of Doubt - Criminal Revision - Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - [Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860] - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution and emphasized the principle that if two views are possible on the evidence, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view favorable to the accused should be adopted. The court also highlighted the rule that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof, and that the prosecution must provide clear, cogent, and unimpeachable evidence before an accused is condemned as a convict.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist-accused was convicted and sentenced under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the alleged abduction of a missing child. The prosecution's case was based on the recovery of the missing child from a slum, but the evidence presented by the prosecution was found to be contradictory and insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the commission of the alleged offense by the revisionist beyond all reasonable doubt, and therefore, the revisionist deserved the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in the alleged abduction case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle that the accused should be given the benefit of doubt if two views are possible on the evidence, with one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence. The court also highlighted the rule that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof, and that the prosecution must provide clear, cogent, and unimpeachable evidence before an accused is condemned as a convict.
Final Decision: The court accepted the case of the revisionist and acquitted him of the charge under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The impugned judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the revisionist was acquitted. His bail bonds were cancelled and sureties discharged.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Kumar Verma, J.

Revisionist-accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two and a half years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Against the said judgment dated 22.01.2011, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 166 of 2011, an Appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2011) was filed. The said Appeal has been dismissed vide judgment dated 05.08.2011, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/IInd FTC, Haridwar.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the informant Janeshwar (PW3) informed the police on 24.06.1998 that his five year old son-Shubham Kumar was missing since 22.06.1998. A missing report was registered by the police. On 25.06.1998, when the police party along with the informant-Janeshwar (PW3), Babu Ram (PW1), Vinay Pradhan (PW4) and one Sukkar were searching for the missing child, they received a secret information that the missing child could be recovered from a slum. Accordingly, the police party along with the above mentioned persons raided the said slum. Shubham Kumar was sitting scared outside the said slum. The revisionist’s mother Smt. Sunita was standing outside the slum and the revisionist and his father-Ramesh were present inside the said slum. They were arrested by the police.

3. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka 4) was filed by Mr. B.S. Bhakuni (PW5).

4. Ramesh confessed his guilt. Due to absence of Smt. Sunita, the file of the revisionist was separated.

5. The charge was framed. Revisionist-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. Prosecution, in order to establish the charge, examined altogether five witnesses.

7. Statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. Revisionist-accused denied all the incriminating evidence, adduced by the prosecution.

8. Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, Advocate, appearing for the revisionist, contended that as per the prosecution story, there were two eye-witnesses of the alleged recovery other than the informant. The said eye-witnesses have turned hostile and the evidence of other witnesses are contradictory to each other, and, in the complete story, no motive has been assigned.

9. Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State, has supported the judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.

10. I heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully assessed the evidence, adduced by the prosecution.

11. According to the prosecution case, at the time when the missing child was recovered, the revisionist was also present in the said slum. Babu Ram (PW1) and Vinay Pradhan (PW4) were present with the police party at the time of recovery of the missing child. But, these two witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Both these witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution.

12. It has been deposed by Babu Ram (PW1) that Bittu (revisionist) was not present inside the slum at the time when the missing child was recovered, whereas, it has been stated by Vinay Pradhan (PW4) that the missing child was not recovered in his presence.

13. According to the prosecution, Ravindra Kumar Chamoli (PW2) was posted in-charge at the police chowki Har-ki-Pauri at the time of recovery of the missing child. He had recovered the missing child from the slum. The informant-Janeshwar (PW3), the father of the missing child, was also present with him at that time, but, serious contradictions are found in their statements due to which, the case of the prosecution against the revisionist cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

14. The prosecution’s case is that when the slum was raided, missing child-Shubham Kumar was sitting scared outside the slum. Ravindra Kumar Chamoli (PW2) stated that Shubham Kumar was recovered in front of the slum, while, Janeshwar (PW3) stated that Shubham Kumar was present inside the said slum. He had brought Shubham Kumar out of the said slum.

15.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document