HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.626 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the validity and the legality of the judgment that is rendered by the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, in Sessions Case No.305 of 2011, dated 08.05.2012. The learned judge of the trial Court acquitted the respondents-accused of the charge levelled against them.
2. In the grounds of appeal, it is urged that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; that the learned judge of the trial Court ought to have seen that the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 395 I.P.C. were made out by the prosecution; that the learned judge ought to have seen that the respondents-accused have confessed the commission of offence and that cash was seized from them; and that the learned judge has not considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in correct perspective and therefore, the acquittal of the respondents-accused is unsustainable and as such, the appeal has to be allowed.
3. Reported to take it as heard by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant. The respondents-accused did not choose to submit anything.
4. Now the points that arise for determination are:
(1) Whether the prosecution emerged successful before the trial Court in establishing the guilt of the Dr.CSL , J 2 Crl.A.No.626 of 2014 respondents-accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 395 I.P.C. (2) Whether there exists any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court either in appreciating the facts of the case or in applying the established principles of law to the said facts, as contended by the appellant, which in turn requires the interference of this Court exercising the appellate jurisdiction.
5. Point No.1:
The case of the prosecution, as could be visualised from the charge sheet, is that P.W-1 was running a petrol bunk in the outskirts of Lingareddypet and as usual, on 08.4.2011, at about 8.05 pm., he went to his petrol bunk, collected daily cash of Rs.37,500/- from his workers and while he was proceeding on his motor cycle to his house, all of a sudden four unknown offenders came from the bushes and assaulted him with stones and sticks and robbed away the said cash of Rs.37,500/- and that, basing on the complaint given by him, a case was registered and investigated into, and while the investigation was in progress, on 02.5.2011, a message was received from P.W-8-C.I. of Police that the respondents-accused were arrested on 01.5.2011 in another crime and during the course of interrogation, they confessed the commission of the crime pertaining to the present case.
6. Record discloses that the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and produced Exs.P-1 to P-14 and M.Os.1 to 3 to establish its case.
Dr.CSL , J 3 Crl.A.No.626 of 2014
7. Disbelieving the genuineness in the material evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned judge of the trial Court rendered a judgment of acquittal. The said findings of the trial Court are under challenge in this appeal.
8. The happening of the incident is clearly brought on record through the evidence of P.W-1 and Ex.P-1-complaint. No much cross- examination went on the said aspect. However, as rightly observed by the trial Court to connect the respondents-accused to the crime, it is for the prosecution to establish that it is the respondents-accused who robbed the said amount from P.W-1.
9. The version of the prosecution is that P.Ws.1 and 2 saw the said offenders and P.W-1 identified them during the test identification parade. The fact that the identification parade was conducted is brought on record through the evidence of P.W-7. The only thing that has to be seen is whether the identification parade is a genuine one. A meticulous perusal of the evidence of P.W-1 creates a cloud of suspicion about the genuineness in the said identification parade.
10. P.W-8 during the course of cross-examination admitted that after he arrested the respondents-accused, he made a press conference with the accused in the presence of the DSP. He admitted that the photographs of the said press conference were published in the daily newspapers. He further admitted that he had taken the photographs of the accused and their thumb marks for the purpose of record.
11. The prime witness-P.W-1 during the course of cross- examination stated that he is a TV media reporter and in that capacity, he used to visit Police Station frequently. He also stated that he used Dr.CSL , J 4 Crl.A.No.626 of 2014 to read newspapers every day. Such being the evidence produced by the prosecution, there is every possibility of P.W-1 noticing the photographs of the respondents-accused much prior to the identification parade. Therefore, it cannot be held that P.W-1 identified the accused through his memory which stored the images of the accused who attacked him.
12. The prosecution also based its case on the alleged confessional statements made by the respondents-accused. P.W-8, who deposed to the effect that himself and his staff chased the accused and apprehended them and recorded their confessional statements, during the course of cross-examination, admitted that there is a mention of various crime numbers of various Police Stations and Sections of law in the confessional statements of the accused. If all of a sudden, the culprits were found and apprehended and thereafter, their confessional statements were immediately recorded, there would be no possibility of mentioning the crime numbers in the said statements. Only after thorough enquiry, even an efficient investigating officer would get knowledge about the crimes to which the statements made by the accused are connected to. But, here is a case where P.W-8 who apprehended the respondents-accused says that he had mentioned even the crime number in the confessional statement. Therefore, such a statement cannot be relied upon to prove the case of the prosecution.
13. Furthermore, P.W-1 did not state about the presence of P.W-2 at the place of the incident. P.W-1 during the course of cross- examination also stated that there were no street lights on road and it was dark. In such a situation, it would not be possible for a common Dr.CSL , J 5 Crl.A.No.626 of 2014 man to examine the physical features of the culprits, store them in memory and identify them later.
14. Thus, having regard to the foregoing factor and as rightly observed by the learned judge of the trial Court, it would be wholly unfair to convict the respondents-accused for the charge levelled against them. The prosecution totally failed in its attempt in connecting the respondents-accused with the crime. Therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution could not establish the guilt of the respondents-accused beyond all reasonable doubt before the trial Court.
15. Point No.2:- The trial Court with all its wisdom and by proper application of law to the facts of the case has come to a just conclusion. There is no infirmity or illegality whatsoever in the judgment of the trial Court either in appreciating the facts of the case or in applying the established principles of law to the said facts. Though the prosecution attempted to establish the guilt of the respondents-accused beyond all reasonable doubt, it failed to do so. Thus, the learned judge of the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents-accused. The said judgment needs no interference by this Court.
16. In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed confirming the judgment rendered by the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, in Sessions Case No.305 of 2011, dated 08.05.2012.
17. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA 28.10.2021 Dr.CSL , J 6 Crl.A.No.626 of 2014 dr