HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1145 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The State is questioning the acquittal of the respondent/accused for the offence under Sections 395 of IPC and under Section 25 of Indian Arms Act vide judgment in CC No.23 of 2002 dated 23.09.2002 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar, vide the present appeal.
2. The case of the Kalwakurthy Police is that on 31.05.2000 when P.W.1 was sleeping with his family members in the house, they heard a sound and found five unknown persons holding weapons in their hands. They introduced themselves as 'Annalu' (expression used for naxalites) and searched entire house and snatched away cash of Rs.1,60,000/- and jewellery vide MOs.1 to 3 and cash vide MOs 8 to 10 and MOs.12 to 14.
3. The police investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the respondents/accused. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the respondent not guilty of the offences alleged. The main grounds on which the learned Assistant 2 Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents are that ; i) the independent witnesses P.Ws.6 and 8 did not support the case of the prosecution and admittedly, their signatures were taken on blank papers; ii) P.W.7 is also another mediator who stated that he was called by the police and obtained his signature on Ex.P6 panchanama. A3 was the person who removed cash and gold from his pocket which were recovered. However, according to P.W.7, said ornaments and cash were on the table of the Inspector of the police station; iii) The recovery of gold and cash was attributed to the accused when it was already to the knowledge of the police and the such recoveries cannot be attributed to the accused.
4. P.Ws.1 to 3 who identified the accused in the Court for the first time cannot be believed for the reason of there being no test identification parade and also descriptive particulars of the accused were also not mentioned in complaint. Further, all the witnesses have given different descriptive particulars during examination by police of the persons whom they have seen. 3
5. As found by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, identification and recoveries were not proved by the prosecution convincingly. In the case of dacoity, when the accsued are strangers, it is incumbent on the part of police to prove that their identification was genuine and should convince the court. The police ought to have conducted test identification proceedings by Magistrate.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 held that under the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two fundamental protections available to him in a criminal trial or investigation. Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and investigation. Both these facets attain even greater significance where the accused has a judgment of acquittal in his favour. A judgment of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence of the accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false implication. But then, this has to be established on record of the Court.
1(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688 4
7. In the said circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court to reverse the finding of acquittal of the accused.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 28.09.2022 kvs 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1145 OF 2009 Dated: 28.09.2022 kvs