Back
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
MS. JUSTICE SABINA, MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA, JJ
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – Appellant
Versus
SHAKIL SON OF SHRI GAFOOR, ANISH SON OF SHRI MOHD. INAM – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.108 of 2008
For the Appellants/Petitioners:MS. DIVYA SOOD, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL
For the Respondents: MR. LOVNEESH KANWAR, MR. KARAN SINGH KANWAR
The presumption of innocence strengthens with an acquittal, demanding strong proof for conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 392, 34 - Appeal against acquittal - Appellant contends that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence and wrongly held non-recovery of weapon as fatal - Court observes a presumption of innocence is strengthened by acquittal and appellate courts must be slow to overturn such judgments, emphasizing past precedents (Para 13).
(B) Burden of proof - Prosecution’s failure to establish the identification of accused and link between recovery of pistol and the crime leads the court to uphold acquittal. The court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (Paras 18-24).
Facts of the case:
Accused were acquitted in a bank robbery case involving significant procedural critiques and evaluation of witness reliability.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the state’s appeal, emphasizing the necessity of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court’s evaluation of evidence was flawed.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court adhered to the standards regarding reversals of acquittals, necessitating rigorous scrutiny of proof.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeal is based on the acquittal of the accused in a bank robbery case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. prosecution examined multiple witnesses to establish charges against the accused. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. arguments from both sides regarding the trial court judgment. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court emphasizes the presumption of innocence and appellate scrutiny. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. issues of evidence and witness credibility reviewed in acquittal context. (Para 16 , 18 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. final ruling and dismissal of the appeal are conveyed. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure , against the judgment of acquittal dated 03.11.2007, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in Sessions Trial No.5-N/7 of 2005, titled State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Shakil and another, whereby the respondents/ accused persons were acquitted of the charges framed against them.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 20.12.2004, a telephonic information was received from the complainant V.K. Kalia, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Rajpura at Police Station Paonta Sahib regarding dacoity in the bank and on receipt of such information, Inspector/SHO Narveer Singh (Investigating Officer) alongwith other police officials proceeded to the spot in Govt. vehicle bearing registration No.HP18A-1792, where complainant V.K. Kalia presented an application to the effect that on 20.12.2004 at about 3.10 p.m., when he alongwith Gopal and Harmesh was present in the bank, the accused persons entered in the bank premises, pointed the guns towards them and enquired about the cash and also directed the complainant to open the cash safe and almirahs. Thereafter, they looted the cash amounting to Rs.2,511/- from the counter and despatch box and then they ran away on a blue coloured motorcycle after bolting them from outside. The Investigating Officer sent the said application to the police station for registration of FIR, through C.
Navinder Singh.
3. On the receipt of the said application, FIR No.459, dated 20.12.2004 was registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., against the accused persons under Sections 392 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
4. During investigation, after inspecting the spot, the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of the witnesses and he also got clicked the photographers of the spot from photographer Rajinder Singh. After receiving the information at Police Post Singhpura about the incident, HC Yudhvir Singh was deputed to go towards Nawghat and after about 10-15 minutes of laying the naka, two persons came on a motorcycle from Singhpura-Nawghat side and they were signalled to stop in presence of Ramesh and Kartara, who were present there, but they did not stop, on which, HC Yudhvir Singh gave a danda blow, due to which the motorcycle stopped and tilted towards one side and thereafter the pillion rider of the motorcycle fired gunshots on HC Yudhvir Singh, as a result of which, he sustained injuries and thereafter they ran away from the spot. On 21.12.2004, the Investigating Officer visited Nawghat and prepared the site plan of the spot and also recorded the statements of witnesses Ramesh and Kartara. HC Yudhvir Singh was taken to hospital for treatment and his blood stained clothes were taken into possession and thereafter the same were sealed in a parcel with seal impression ‘T’. Thereafter, the case file was handed over to SI Gurdeep Singh for further investigation.
5. On 04.01.2005, on receipt of the information from Police Station, Mirjapur to the effect that a blue coloured ‘Kinetic Boss’motorcycle had been taken into possession in FIR No.94/04, SI Gurdeep Singh went to Police Station, Mirjapur and found the said motorcycle there and on 06.01.2005 HC Yudhvir Singh and Ramesh identif
