Allowed

Shital Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2018CRLA/1994/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant was convicted under Section 411 IPC for stolen property recovery. The appellate court held the conviction unsustainable as the prosecution failed to produce the recovery memo, and witnesses could not specify time, place, or registration details of the recovery made eight years prior. Conviction set aside and benefit of doubt granted.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 411 IPC set aside; appellant acquitted; lower court order quashed.

Shital Singh Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1994 of 2001

¶3

Appellant :- Shital Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Bharat Bhushan Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.05.2001 passed by learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area Act, Etawah) in Special Case No. 268 of 1993 (State v. Shital Singh), whereby appellant Shital Singh was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). Instead of sentencing him to any punishment at once, he was released on probation of good conduct for a period of two years.

¶6

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case, as are reflected from perusal of record, are that on 21.01.1993 at about 08.15 P.M., near 'Syed Majar' at village Gadalot, Police Station - Bharthana, District - Etawah, three unknown persons looted Escort 335 Tractor of informant Patiram bearing Registration No. U.P. - 75/3563.

¶7

3. On information being given by informant Patiram, first information report at Crime No. 14 of 1993 under Section 392 IPC was lodged on 22.01.1993 at 08.00 A.M. at Police Station - Bharthana, District - Etawah against three unknown persons. The said tractor was recovered from the possession of the appellant and co-accused Ram Kesh by the police on 01.04.1993 in Sihoniya, District - Morena, Madhya Pradesh. On the basis of this recovery, after investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against appellant Shital Singh and coaccused Ram Kesh for the offence punishable under Section 392 and 411 IPC.

¶8

4. The trial court framed charge against appellant Shital Singh and co-accused Ram Kesh under Section 392 and 411 IPC. Charges were read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶9

5. During trial, co-accused Ram Kesh absconded, due to which his case was separated.

¶10

6. The prosecution, in order to substantiate charges against the accused-appellant, examined P.W.1 informant Patiram, P.W.2

¶11

Constable Ram Prasad, P.W.3 Head Constable Ram Autar Tiwari, P.W.4 Sub-Inspector Shriniwas Kanekar.

¶12

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accusedappellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the alleged recovery of tractor from his possession and further stated that police has made false allegation against him due to enmity.

¶13

8. In defence, no testimony was adduced, either oral or documentary.

¶14

9. Learned trial court after considering the case on its merit passed the impugned order.

¶15

10. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned trial court, the appellant has preferred the instant criminal appeal.

¶16

11. Heard Sri Bharat Bhushan Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Madhu Rani Garg, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of Uttar Pradesh.

¶17

12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no evidence against the appellant about the alleged recovery. Learned trial court has passed the impugned order without properly appreciating the evidence on record, which is not sustainable.

¶18

13. Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned trial court.

¶19

14. By the impugned judgment and order, accused-appellant Shital Singh was acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC as there was no evidence against him for committing loot.

¶20

15. P.W.3 Retd. Head Constable Ram Autar Tiwari and P.W.4 Sub-Inspector Shirniwas Kanekar are the witnesses of alleged recovery of tractor from the possession of the appellant and coaccused Ram Kesh. They admitted this fact that recovery memo was prepared on the spot. The prosecution has not produced the recovery memo before the court. Both the witnesses have not specified the time and place from where the tractor was recovered. They have also not specified whether at the time of alleged recovery there was any public witness or not. The police personnel have made alleged recovery in discharge of their official duty. Their statement had been recorded on 20.03.2001 and 29.03.2001, respectively. In between these eight years, i.e. from 1993 to 2001, these police personnel might have made

¶21

many other recoveries. This is not a special event, but routine work of the police. It was not possible for them to remember the facts of recovery made eight years ago. It was also not possible for them to narrate the registration number of the tractor alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the appellant. Recovery memo was material document on the basis of which these two witnesses may prove the alleged recovery. Without recovery memo, only on the basis of oral evidence of these two witnesses, it cannot be said beyond reasonable doubt that the stolen tractor was recovered from the possession of the appellant. Hence, the appellant deserves to be given benefit of doubt and as such, he cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC.

¶22

16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Conviction of appellant under Section 411 IPC is hereby set aside and he is acquitted.

¶23

17. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the court below for its compliance. Let the lower court's record be remitted back to the court concerned.

¶24

Order Date :- 21.3.2018 I. Batabyal

Shital Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shital Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vipin Singh and 3OTHERS Vs State of Up and Another

Saurabh Vs State of U.P.

Yunush Vs State of U.P.

Manish Singh and 3 Otehrs Vs State of Up and Another

Amar Nath and Others Vs State of U.P.

Deepak and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another