Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta granted the appeal against the judgment dated December 21, 2022, by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 1427 of 1999, which dismissed the appellant’s appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellant sought to overturn the October 20, 1999 judgment by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, M.P., convicting them under Sections 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with further imprisonment of three months in default of payment
t.On December 12, 1998, around 10:30 am, the complainant Bhagu Bai was attacked while going to her field. The assailant, who approached from behind, covered her eyes, assaulted her with a knife, and stole her silver anklet, necklace, and bracelet. Despite the attack, she couldn’t identify the perpetrator. The appellant was later arrested on December 14, 1998, based on suspicion. Allegedly, the appellant confessed during interrogation, leading to the recovery of the stolen silver items, verified by the complainant before an Executive Magistrate.
The accused appellant was charged and tried for the mentioned offenses after the filing of the charge sheet, leading to conviction and sentencing by the trial court. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing the appellant’s appeal on December 21, 2022, which is now being contested. We have carefully considered the arguments presented by both the appellant’s counsel and the Deputy Advocate General representing the State.It’s worth noting that although the complainant, Bhagu Bai (PW-3), attempted to bolster her case during her testimony by identifying the accused in court, both the trial court and the High Court did not rely on this identification. Instead, the case was primarily established based on the recovery of the ornaments. Bhagu Bai (PW-3) claimed to have identified the recovered ornaments during test identification proceedings. However, during cross-examination, she admitted that the police officers had identified her jewelry, after which she recognized it
It’s crucial to highlight that the Investigating Officer (PW-12), who recorded the accused’s disclosure statement and oversaw the recovery, failed to fulfill the legal requirement of proving the disclosure memo. In the extracted portion of the Investigating Officer’s deposition, it’s evident that he didn’t recount the precise words uttered by the accused during the disclosure statement. Moreover, he didn’t mention that the accused led him to the location where the articles were concealed. Instead, he stated that he took the accused to the spot and recovered the silver ornaments.
As a result of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the prosecution failed to establish the disclosure made by the accused to the Investigating Officer (PW-12), which allegedly led to the recovery of the stolen silver articles. Additionally, there was no evidence presented to demonstrate that the recovered articles were sealed at the time of recovery or securely kept in the police station’s malkhana until identification before the Executive Magistrate. Moreover, the Executive Magistrate was not called as a witness. The complainant, Bhagu Bai (PW-3), admitted during cross-examination that she recognized the silver articles in the test identification proceedings only after being pointed out by the police officials. Therefore, the recovery and identification of the ornaments lack legal validity and cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to present any other evidence connecting the accused appellant to the crime.Consequently, there is no concrete or reliable evidence on record to uphold the guilt of the accused appellant as determined by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court.
Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The judgments dated October 20, 1999, and December 21, 2022, passed by the trial court and the High Court, respectively, are hereby nullified. The accused appellant is acquitted of the charges. If the accused is detained in jail and not required in any other case, they shall be released from custody immediately.
CASE TITLE : HANSRAJ VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, SLP (Crl.) No(s). 4626 of 2024
Written by: Ayesha Hussain, College name : Surendranath Law College, 4th year B.A.LL.B(HONS) ,Intern under Legal Vidhiya
REFERENCES
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/16599/16599_2023_3_1503_52325
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
