Criminal appeal against conviction for dacoity. Single judge held there was no cogent legal admissible evidence as prosecution witnesses were hostile. Appeal allowed, conviction set aside, and appellant acquitted.
Appellant acquitted. Impugned judgment set aside. Bail bonds discharged. Fine amount to be refunded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
! V “\\;\F;§L‘L\w:|mwu“ x
‘;‘ ‘
’~“
a
l
Ng: W
I N THE HIGH COURT-OF MADEY£1PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Original Appeal No. [WK of 1996.
/ / /,
Aj it /Lakda son of Sal ¢£ma1v, aged about 26 years ,
labourer, resident of Nana , P .S. Seima g ‘,
§éra M
Bihar. x1
\At‘yresent. in Raigarh Jai.l
A PPEL'LA NT
/,
VERSUS /
/
, fhe:State of M.P. in . I RESPONDENT
APPEAL UNDER SECTIONu314 OF CR.E.O.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Ho.n M.r Jusceti Pitinkerr Di)waker Crmiinal Aplpea N o. 402 o f 1969 Atji Lakd.a
APPELLANT
VERSUS
RESPONDENT State o f Madyah Pradesh.
ShnA K Prsada cou nsel forppntaean Shn Vlvek Sharma PL for respondent/taeSt CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
J U D G M E NT (022.08.010)
Th is appela is drteiecd aganist the jugmntde adn orerd dated 3 0 01 199 6 paedss by Addtonaiil Sessmns Ju dge Jashpur Nagar In Sewnsss Tanl N o 2194/194 convtctln g th e ad/ccuseappellant under Section 395 01 IPC an d sencmgten hmi to unrgode rigorous Imrisonmentp fro five years a nd pyafmeo f R s 2000 I n deauflt o f paymetn of fine to . furt her unedrgo s:mepl Imprisonmen t for o ne year II I I I ' -- -2. Brief ftacs ofteh csea are th at o n 2299.05.13 at about 610. a.m. FIRII r V w W ‘ (E-XP7) was Io dged byM d. Khiasm (PW—3)1 aengllgi th at he is a drveri of a tckru bengari ristratnegio N.o WBO3—4815 and o n thta da y w hen he was _ dvgriin his truck from Talm ada, Orlssa to Rnchi,a near Sarjhyaafari bidger-3 six unknow n pnersos stoppde his truck, out of tmhe on e was cayingrr a country m ade pitols, four peonsrs weer carrying sharp cugttin weapons a nd one was carrying club . lt is all eged th at the accus ed perossn h ave first demande d money from the colainmpnat and tereafhter t hey looted away , R.s 320,0andone HMT wrist watch. lt is aols alledge thta thereafter all :the?es prsones had frtruhe cmeomittd da coity in 4- 5 other trucks . lt is fuherrt a lleged th at in connectino wi th smeo oerth case , the accu/apellantsedp wsa arrested by teh police o f Sttea of Barih and dingur ‘ einqury it reveale d t hat h e has commi t ed th e ptresen cri me also and based on that he was madeausedcc in th e pstreencse a along with o ne
\ wL
0 r _ i
-2—
Parmanand and offence under sections 395 IPC and 25 & 27 of Arms Act was registered against them "
F
I“
I“ 3. After Investigation the challan was flled on 08 O8 1994 against thJ present appellant and the acquitted accused Parmanand and chargesi were framed against them under sections 395 of IPC and 25 & 27 of Arme Act. Vt i ‘ L 4. So as to hold the accused persons guilty, prosecution has examined A 13 witnesses in support of its case Statements of the accused persons. A were also recorded under section 313 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure In I which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their M Innocence and false Implication m the case
- By the impugned Judgment the co accused Parmanand has been, acquitted of all the offences whereas the present appellant has been V ’ 'conVictedthough acqUItted under sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act but has beenr under section 395 IPC as mentioned above Hence the present appeal 6.‘ i ’ Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on > record Including the Judgment Impugned
a I
‘ j
- On the other hand supporting the impugned Judgment it has been argued by the State counsel that though the independent Witnesses have
‘ not supported the prosecution case but yet the Court below is fully Justified in conVicting the accused/appellant on the ba3is of the statements of th e governmentoffiCials
t
f3”
' 9. Madhusudan Ram (PW—1) and Rameswar Das (PW—4) are thé witnesses to the Test Identification Parade (EXP-4), have not supported j \ i the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. Laxman Das (PW—; ‘3) and Dilip Kumar Das (PW-5) are the witnesses of memorandum (Ex. P-: 1) and seizure (EXP-2) have also not supported the prosecution case and » have been deClared hostile. Shivchand Choudhary (PW—6) is the witness‘ of seizure and has als‘onot supported the prosecution case and has bee i declared hostile. Shivram (PW-7)— the Head Constable has recorded‘the" FIR (Ex.Pr7). Jaikrishna Nayak (PW-8) is a driver of the other vehicle who was also subjected to dacoity,‘has stated that his watch was looted by the accused persons and he had identified his watch in the police stationi i However, in cross—examination this witness has stated that his watch Was V kept in the police station on a table and the police officials told him that thej said watch belonged to him. L. K. Sai (PW—10)— District Magistrate has identified the signature of the Collector vide Ex. P-8. R. A. Chhatra (PW-l I 11) — the Investigating Officer and V. Pradhan (PW—12) have done part of. the investigation. Md. Kashim Husain ((PW—13)— the lodger of the FIR has stated that the report was lodged by him and has narrated the incidentasT, to in what manner the watch and the amount was taken from him. Furtherl he has stated that the persons, who had taken money from him, could not be identified by him at the time ofthe incident.
' ‘
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 395 IPC is sustainable when independent witnesses have declared themselves hostile and the case relies solely on statements of government officials.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ajit Lakda
State of M.P.
Pitinker Diwaker
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
