Back
2024 Supreme(UK) 467
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.
State of Uttaranchal – Appellant
Versus
Narendra Kumar Mehta and Others – Respondents
Government Appeal No. 284 of 2007
Decided On : 21-02-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.C. Dumka.
For the Respondent: R.S. Azad.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that mere allegations without corroborative evidence are insufficient to sustain criminal convictions.
Headnote:
Criminal - Rioting - IPC Sections 147, 323, 452, 506 - The court discussed the definitions and requirements for proving rioting, voluntarily causing hurt, house trespass, and criminal intimidation, ultimately finding insufficient evidence to uphold the trial court's convictions.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused attacked the informant's house, causing injuries. The informant's son-in-law reported the incident, and several witnesses corroborated the attack. The trial court convicted the accused based on this evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court found that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the charges against the accused, noting inconsistencies and lack of eyewitness accounts. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the accused's involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the evidence was sufficient to uphold the convictions for rioting, voluntarily causing hurt, house trespass, and criminal intimidation against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court emphasized the necessity of proving the common object of an unlawful assembly and the direct involvement of the accused in the alleged crimes, which was not established in this case.
Result: The appeal was dismissed, and the accused were acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT :
PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.
1. This appeal preferred by the State under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.08.2006, passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2006, Narendra Kumar Mehta & others vs. State, whereby the said court has allowed the appeal and set-aside the judgment and order dated 15.06.2006, passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 194 of 2006, State vs. Narendra Kumar Mehta & others.
2. Facts in brief are that the prosecution was set into motion by registration of an FIR on 07.12.2000 at 10:30 a.m. by informant-Shiv Charan Pal (PW1), stating therein that on that day at about 9:00 a.m., he was informed by PW2 father of his son-in-law, that his neighbours-Narendra Mehta and his sons along with their eight to ten companions attacked their house. On receiving this information, while the informant was just leaving the house, his son-in-law in injured condition reached to his house and informed that about 09:00 a.m. on that day, Narendra Mehta along with his three sons (accused herein) along with eight to ten other persons reached to his house and said that since they have instituted a case against them in the police station, they would not allow them to live in this house and committed marpeet with them by iron rod and a chain. After being escaped from there somehow, he was again caught in the veranda by those persons (accused) and committed marpeet. His wife and niece were also beaten with fists and kicks by the accused persons. The incident was witnessed by neighbours i.e. Gazendra Jain, Mukesh Jain, Syed (mason), Baghwan Das, Raju & other neighbours. On the basis of said report of informant, a case was registered against the accused persons along with eight to ten persons for the offence under Sections 147, 452, 323 & 506 IPC.
3. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against them in the court. The charge was framed against the accused for the selfsame sections which the accused denied and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced as many as nine witnesses. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded which the accused again denied, they did not lead any evidence in their defence.
4. The trial court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, at the culmination of trial, proceeded to convict the accused persons/respondents under Sections 147 IPC for one year R.I., 323 IPC for one year R.I., 452 IPC for three years’ R.I. and Section 506(2) IPC for one year R.I and each accused was further sentenced with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. All the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently.
5. The accused persons/respondents being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar which was decided vide judgment and order dated 02.08.2006, passed by the said court, which resulted into their acquittal. Hence, the State has come up before this Court challenging the same judgment.
6. The trial court has convicted the respondents-accused for the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC which defines punishment for rioting. Rioting has been defined under Section 146 IPC, which defines that whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting. The trial court has mentioned in its judgment that only four accused persons committed occurrence and this fact was also admitted by PW4 (Syed Hasan) in his statement that the incident was committed by Narendra Mehta, Satendra Mehta and their two sons. The first information report also mentioned the fact that the incident was committed by the accused persons/respondents. The statement given by Vinod Kumar Chandel (PW2), Devendra Prakash
