Maiyadeen vs State
2025 Latest Caselaw 2769 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Maiyadeen vs State on 31 July, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:128182
 

 
Reserved
 
Delivered on 31.07.2025
 
Court No. - 75
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2527 of 1985
 

 
Appellant :- Maiyadeen
 
Respondent :- State
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Gaurav Maurya,Pankaj Kumar Kesharwani,Rahul Jain
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. Challenge in this appeal is judgment and order dated 14.08.1985 passed by the Special Judge-III (Dacoity Affected Area) Banda in Sessions Trial No.403 of 1984, State Vs. Maiyadeen convicting the appellant under Section 354 IPC and sentencing him to 4 months R.I. and a fine of Rs.300/- and convicting the appellant under Section 392 IPC and sentencing him to 4 month R.I. and fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of the fine, the appellant had to undergo 3 months R.I.

3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 18.04.1984, the first informant /PW-2 had submitted a written report before the Police Station with an allegation that on 18.04.1984 at 09:30 in the morning, she had proceeded from her house towards old Bazar Gadalat Mohalla, then at that point of time near the agricultural field of Kallu Dhobi, the appellant met the first informant/PW-2 near the Old Bazar, Karvi Mill and he commented as to where the first informant/PW-2 was going and in order to molest her, he proceeded further and he had put in his right hand on the chest of the first informant/PW-2 and in the left hand had a knife, he just placed it on the chest of the first informant/PW-2 and proceeded to converse in obscene talks and the first informant /PW-2 on account of fear made hue and cry, which was heard by PW-1 Ram Ratan, who is the resident of the Old Bazar Karvi and Mohammad Hasan son of Rajjak Hussain and on their shouting, the appellant ran away while snatching gold ornaments worth Rs.1000/-. On the basis of the written report, an FIR (Exbt. Ka2) came to be lodged by Head Moharrir Khaleel Ahmad and against the appellant-accused case under Sections 354 and 392 IPC was registered. One Prithviraj Chauhan (PW-3) was appointed as Investigating Officer, who visited the spot and after making investigation prepared a site plan (Exbt. Ka4) and post conduction of the investigation charge sheet came to be submitted against the appellant (Exbt. Ka5). The Court on 19.03.1985 framed charges against the appellant under Sections 354/392 IPC and the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges, produced the following witnesses: (a) PW-1 Ram Ratan, (b) PW-2 Biriya and (c) PW-3 Prithviraj Chauhan.

5. After leading of the evidence by the prosecution, statements under Section 313 CrPC of the appellant accused was recorded. While the appellant/accused was given an opportunity to lead evidence by the Court, the appellant did not submit either documentary or oral evidence. Thereafter the Court of Special Judge-III (Dacoity Affected Area) Banda proceeded in Sessions Trial No. 403 of 1984, State Vs. Maiyadeen to convict the appellant under Section 354 IPC and sentence him to 4 months R.I. and a fine of Rs.300/- and convict the appellant under Section 392 IPC and sentence him to 4 month R.I. and fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant had to undergo 3 months R.I.

6. Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the appellant has sought to argue that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case, as he is innocent. Elaborating the said submission, it is submitted that no such incident took place, so as to remotely indicate that offence under Sections 354 and 392 of IPC stood committed. Submission is that in the FIR lodged by PW-2/first informant/victim, the incident is stated to have been dated 18.04.1984 at 09:30 in the morning, however, from the perusal of the statement of PW-1 Ram Ratan son of Khelawan, who is stated to be a witness, the time is being shown to be 8-8:30. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the same is a material contradiction, which completely erodes the prosecution theory and makes it thoroughly unreliable so as to lead conviction. Further submission is that in examination-in-chief of PW-1 Ram Ratan, he has deposed that on 18.04.1984 as soon as he reached the spot, then the appellant ran away, who was standing and committing the offence with the PW-2/first informant/victim. However, in cross-examination by the defence, PW-1/ Ram Ratan has deposed that he had not seen the appellant coming or going. Contention is that the said contradiction goes to the root of the matter and shows the falsity in the allegation. It is also submitted that as per the FIR and the deposition of PW-2/first informant on hue and cry being raised, PW-1/ Ram Ratan son of Khelawan along with Mohammad Hasan son of Rajjak Hussain came to the spot, but the prosecution for the reason best known to them, rather obvious, never produced Mohammad Hasan son of Rajjak Hussain in the witness box.

7. In nutshell, submission is that the entire prosecution theory proceeds on falsity just in order to somehow entangle and rope in the appellant. It is also contended that the appellant happens to be a journalist and he used to write against one Khalik Kunjra, so he bore grudge and since the first informant/PW-2 used to wear bangles manufactured by Khalik Kunjara, so Khalik Kunjra through the first informant got a false and concocted story cooked up by way of FIR. It is also contended that the second reason which bore animosity with PW-2 /first informant is that the pressure was being mounted upon the first informant to pay the price of the milk and she, in order to effect the same, had lodged the FIR. It is next contended that there is delay in lodging of the FIR, as the incident took place at 09:30 as per the case set out in the FIR, but the FIR came to be lodged at 01:30, thus a well developed story was being cooked up in deliberation and just in order to falsity implicated the applicant. It is also contended that the falsity in the prosecution case is further apparent from the fact that there had been no recovery of any stolen article, which is alleged to have been snatched away by the appellant. It is thus prayed that judgment and order of the Trial Court convicting the appellant by set aside and appeal be allowed in toto.

8. Countering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer has submitted that the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant. It is submitted that there was ample evidence on record including he testimony of the prosecution witnesses which clearly proves that the appellant had committed the offence. Argument is that the incident is during day time at 09:30 in the month of April and the first informant/PW-2 could easily recognize the appellant. It is submitted that the reason so canvassed by the defence that the appellant has been falsely implicated due to enmity is improbable besides being out of context for the simple reason that the said grounds of non-payment of money for the milk and wearing of bangles of Khalik Kunjara and news publication cannot be a motive for commission of the crime. Contention is that the testimony of PW-2/first informant is itself intact and supports the prosecution theory and there is no delay in lodging of the FIR, particularly when the incident is of the village and the PW-2/first informant is a rustic and police station is 1 km away.

9. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully.

10. The FIR alleges that on 18.04.1984 at 09:30 in the morning, when the first informant/PW-2 was proceeded from her house to Old Bazar, then near the agricultural field of Kallu Dhobi, the appellant came in front of PW-2/ first informant and asked as to where the PW-2 /first informant was going and thereafter in order to molest and to attack upon the modesty of PW-2/first informant and on the chest of first informant/PW-2, the appellant had put his left hand and in the right hand he was having a knife, which he had put on the chest of the PW-2/first informant and he indulged in loose and indecent talks. When the first informant / PW-2 made hue and cry, then PW-1 Ram Ratan son of Ram Khelawan and Mohammad Hasan son of Rajjak Hussain came and seeing them, the appellant ran away while snatching the gold ornament worth Rs.1000/-. The first and foremost question, which would arise for consideration is whether the reference so made in the FIR being 09:30 on 18.04.1984, vis--vis the deposition of PW-1/ Ram Ratan alleging that 8/8:30 hours would completely erode the prosecution theory or not. As a matter of fact, what would be relevant is the deposition of PW-2/first informant. In the FIR, the first informant /PW-2 had alleged that the incident took place on 18.04.1984 at 09:30 and the same stood also deposed in her statement. Thus, merely because the PW-1/ Ram Ratan had given a different time would not make the prosecution theory unreliable.

11. Apparently, the incident took place at 09:30 in the month of April, wherein the visibility remains quite clear, thus the question of mistaken identity does not arise. As a matter of fact, from the own stand of the appellant, the PW-2/first informant bore animosity with the appellant on the ground that the first informant did not pay the money for the milk and when pressure was being mounted to pay the same, thus, on the basis of the incorrect allegation, FIR has been lodged. Even otherwise, the motive, which is being sought to be attributed for lodging of the false and concocted case against the appellant is also unbelievable and improbable, even for a prudent person to imagine, particularly when though a feeble attempt was made by the appellant that he had published certain articles against Khalik Kunjara in the newspaper and he had planted the first informant/ PW-2 to lodge the FIR, but nothing was brought before the court below to substantiate the same during the trial. Even the theory of non-payment of amount for milk is also not a factor so as to create a motive for lodging of criminal case against the appellant. The trial court has even otherwise discussed the angle of enmity and had recorded a finding that on a suggestion being made, the first informant/PW-2 had admitted that she was the mother of two boys and two girls and one boy was married and the wife of son of the first informant/PW-2 is blessed with a child and the first informant/PW-2 owns agricultural land and she also takes bid of coal and her husband is no more. The court below had come to the conclusion that there was nothing on record to show that there was any enmity which could have been a factor for lodging criminal case against the appellant. Apart from the same, so far as the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that in the examination of PW-1 Ram Ratan son of Ram Khelawan that he had seen the accused running away whereas in cross-examination it was deposed that the PW-2/first informant had not seen the accused running thus the prosecution theory stands unreliable is concerned, the same may not be a factor to completely overrule the incident and the commission of the crime, particularly when the deposition of PW-2 /first informant is intact. As regards, the other submissions so made on behalf of the appellant that no recovery of gold ornament was made from the appellant, thus the prosecution theory cannot stand is concerned, the same cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there happens to be a testimony that too intact for first informant/PW-2, which pinpoints criminality upon the appellant.

12. Cumulatively analyzing the case from the four corners of law, this Court does not find any palpable error committed by the court below while convicting the appellant. However, looking into the fact that nothing has been pointed out to show that the appellant possesses any criminal history and since the appellant was in jail from 04.05.1984 to 30.09.1984, thus a case is made out for awarding of sentence to the period already undergone.

13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant under Section 354 and 392 IPC are upheld but the sentence of imprisonment for the aforesaid offences awarded to the appellant is modified and altered to the period already undergone. The fine amount already imposed upon the accused-appellant of Rs.300/- each under Sections 354 and 392 IPC, shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of three months from today.

14. In case of default in payment of fine amount within the aforesaid period, the appellant shall serve out the entire sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court vide the impugned judgment and order.

15. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent to Sessions Judge, Banda for compliance. A compliance report be sent to this Court. Copy of this judgment/order be also provided to learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.

Order Date :- 31.7.2025

N.S.Rathour

(Vikas Budhwar, J)