Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Vishnubhai @ Gabbar Prahladbhai ... on 9 May, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/779/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 779 of 2011
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 63 of 2011
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 91 of 2011
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 92 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VISHNUBHAI @ GABBAR PRAHLADBHAI DANTANI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS CM SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PS CHAMPANERI(214) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR RJ GOSWAMI(1102) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. YOGENDRA THAKORE(3975) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 09/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. Since, the facts of the case and issue involved in
captioned appeals are identical and arise out of the same
judgment, the appeals are taken up together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/779/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
2. This common judgment shall decide four criminal
appeals bearing Criminal Appeal Nos.92, 63, 91 and 779 of
2011, preferred by the appellants as well as State.
3. The aforesaid criminal appeals preferred by the original
accused nos.1, 2 and 3 viz. Vishnu Dantani, Sunil Vaghari,
and Amirmiya Shaikh, against the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 31.12.2010 passed by the
Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No.48 of 2010
by which the appellants have been convicted under Sections
Sections 457, 380, and Section 413 read with Section 114 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment as tabulated hereinunder:
Accused Conviction Punishme Fine In
under nt default
Section of fine
Vishnubhai Section 457 Rigorous Rs.1,000/- Simple
@Gabbar of IPC read imprisonme imprison
Prahladbhai with 114 of nt for 2 ment for
Dantani (A-1) IPC years 2 months
Vishnubhai Section 380 Rigorous Rs.2,000/- Simple
@Gabbar of IPC read imprisonme imprison
Prahladbhai with 114 of nt for 3 ment for
Dantani (A-1) IPC years 3 months
Sunil @Tino Section 457 Rigorous Rs.1,000/- Simple
Popatbhai of IPC read imprisonme imprison
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/779/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
Knatilal Vaghri with 114 of nt for 2 ment for
(A-2) IPC years 2 months
Sunil @Tino Section 380 Rigorous Rs.2,000/- Simple
Popatbhai of IPC read imprisonme imprison
Knatilal Vaghri with 114 of nt for 3 ment for
(A-2) IPC years 3 months
Amirmiya Section 413 Rigorous Rs.2,000/- Simple
Kodarbhai of IPC read imprisonme imprison
Sekh(A-3) with 114 of nt for 3 ment for
IPC years 3 months
4. The State has preferred the appeal being Criminal
Appeal No.779 of 2011, under Section 377 of the Cr.P.C. for
inadequacy of the sentence.
5. The facts leading to filing of the aforesaid appeals are
as follows:
5.1 The accused were charged of theft allegedly committed
in the Jain temple, said to have taken place in the night of
23.12.2009 and FIR by the administrator of the Jain temple
came to be filed on the same day i.e. on 23.12.2009 with
Mansa Town Police Station. The temple is situated near
Swaminarayan Temple at Mansa.
It is the case of the prosecution that in order to commit the
offence of theft, the accused nos.1 and 2 by night hours on
23.12.2009, entered into temple by breaking the necessary
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/779/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
doors etc., stolen gold and silver ornaments and cash
amount worth Rs.3,98,000/-, and thereafter, the accused
sold stolen ornaments to accused No. 3 Amirmiya Shaikh, a
goldsmith, doing his business at Vijapur and after receiving
the stolen ornaments, he melted it and retained in the form
of ignot.
5.2 The offence being I-C.R.No.150 of 2009 came to be
registered with Mansa Police Station, for the offences
punishable under Sections 380, 457 and 114 of the IPC
against the unknown thieves.
5.3 The Investigating Officer PW:16 PSI, Faridmiya Malek
was entrusted the investigation of the case. He took visit the
temple and in the presence of independent panchas, drew
the panchnama of place of occurrence on same day i.e. on
23.12.2009.
5.4 It is further case of the prosecution that the appellant
accused were in the custody of Visnagar for other offences
of theft and receiving stolen property. The LCB, Mehsana,
came to know that the appellants accused had committed
theft in the present case. The appellants were interrogated
by the LCB, Mehsana, PW-17 Mr. Solanki, PSI. During the
interrogation, the appellants accused confessed their guilt.
The LCB, Mehsana, intimated to the Mansa Police Station
about the involvement of the accused. The Mansa Police
obtained the transfer warrant and arrested the appellants in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/779/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
the present case of theft. During the investigation, the PI -
PW-16, recorded the statement of witnesses, based on
voluntary disclosure of the accused, prepared a panchnama
in terms of Section 27 as accused pointed out the place of
offence and shop of accused no. 3. The IO, thereafter
recovered and seized the melted stolen ornaments alleged
to have been presented by the son of accused no. 3 PW-18,
and after obtaining the purety certificate of the same, filed a
chargesheet against the accused for the offences punishable
under Section 457, 480 and 114 of the IPC.
6. After due framing of the charge and upon accused
pleaded not guilty, the trial commenced before the Sessions
Court, Gandhinagar. In order to prove the charges, the
prosecution examined in all 19 witnesses and exhibited 8
documents:
Oral evidence
PW 1 - Exh.14 Girdharbhai Vithalbhai Patel, Complainant
PW 2 - Exh.16 Somabhai Channabhai Nai, panch witness
PW 3 - Exh.18 Manishbhai Chabbi Das Shah, panch witness
PW 4 - Exh.20 Babubhai Motibhai Senma, panch witness
PW 5 - Exh.21 Hitendrasinh Dasrathsinh Vihol, panch
witness
PW 6 - Exh.23 Jaguji Pratapji Vihol, panch witness
PW 7 - Exh.25 Yakubmiya Husenmiya Sekh, panch witness
PW 8 - Exh.31 Usmangani Makbulhusen Rangrej, panch
witness
PW 9 - Exh.32 Anand Alumlek Perumal, panch witness
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/779/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
PW 10 - Exh.33 Vipulsinh Navtarsinh Thakor, panch witness
PW 11 - Exh.35 Pravinji Javanji Thakor, panch witness
PW 12 - Exh.37 Ranjitbhai Ganpatbhai
PW 13 - Exh.38 Sanjay Uttam Yadav
PW 14 - Exh.40 Jayeshbhai Natvarlal Soni
PW 15 - Exh.42 Dilipbhai Bhogilal Shah
PW 16 - Exh.49 Faridmiya Sarfumiya Malek, Investigating
Officer
PW 17 - Exh.50 Tejamalsinh Jemalji Solanki, Sub Inspector
PW 18 - Exh.51 Faridmiya Amirmiya Sekh
PW 19 - Exh.55 Vinodkumar Netaram Yadav, Police Inspector
Documentary evidence
Exh.15 FIR Complaint
Exh.17 Panchnama of physical examination of body of
accused
Exh.19 Discovery panchnama as per Section 27 of
Evidence Act
Exh.22 Panchnama of physical examination of body of
accused
Exh.24 Panchnama of Scene of Offence
Exh.30 Panchnama regarding recovering the material
Exh.34 Discovery panchnama as per Section 27 of
Evidence Act
Exh.39 Certificate Issued by Harekrishna Jewelers
7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the
appellants were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
to which, they stated that they have been falsely implicated
by the police in the undetected offence and as such, they
have not committed any offence of theft. So far as accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/779/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
no.3 is concerned, he stated that his son Faridmiya was
pressured to produce the ignot and accordingly, by selling
the house, he produced the ignot at the behest of the police.
8. Though opportunity was extended, no evidence was
tendered from the side of the appellants accused.
9. After hearing the parties and upon appreciation of the
evidence, the Trial Judge convicted the accused nos.1 and 2,
for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 480, and
Section 413 read with Section 114 of the IPC, whereas
accused no.3 was convicted under Section 413 of the IPC
and sentenced the accused accordingly, as mentioned in
Para-2 of this judgment.
10. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the
appellants have filed the criminal appeal, whereas the State
has filed enhancement appeal against the quantum of
sentence.
11. We have heard learned counsel Mr.P.S. Champaneri,
Mr.Yogendra Thakore, Mr.R.J. Goswami, and Ms.C.M. Shah,
learned APP for the respective parties.
12. Learned counsels appearing for the accused made the
following submissions:
(A) That the judgment of conviction is unjust, improper and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/779/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
is not sustainable in eye of law; that there is no evidence
either direct or circumstantial to prove the charge against
the accused and therefore, the prosecution miserably failed
to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.
(B) That it is the case of the prosecution that, the accused
by trespassing and breaking the doors of the temple, stolen
valuable ornaments and thereafter sold it to accused no. 3,
who had converted it into ignot by melting the stolen
ornaments. That there is no evidence to show that the
accused had committed the offence of theft. That the
accused were in the custody of IO, as they had been
apprehended in the another offence of theft; thus, based on
the confession of the guilt of the accused, they had been
again arrested in the present case of theft and except the
admission of the accused, no any evidence found during the
course of investigation to connect them in the alleged
offence; the discovery of place shown by the accused cannot
be used against him, because, after the registration of the
offence the facts of place of occurrence has already been
disclosed and put on paper by way of panchnama; the
panchas have declared hostile and did not have supported
the case of the prosecution; so far as, purchasing of stolen
ornaments by accused no. 3 is concerned, the said fact has
not been proved by the prosecution; the accused no.3 and
his son accused no. 4, who later on acquitted by the court
below, were in custody of Mansa Police; the son of accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/779/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
no. 3 Faridmiya was not doing the business with the accused
no. 3, as at relevant time he was employed as Security
Supervisor at private company at Sanand and under the
pressure of the police, he managed to produce the ignot as
per the weight of the stolen ornaments; thus, there was no
evidence found that the stolen ornaments were purchased
by accused no. 3.
13. In such circumstances, learned counsels appearing for
the appellants would urge that the prosecution failed to
discharge their burden to prove the charges against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt and there can be no
conviction on the basis of surmises, conjectures and
suspicion, howsoever grave it may be and therefore, they
prayed that the order of conviction and sentence be set
aside and appellants may be acquitted of the charges
leveled against them.
14. On the other hand, opposing the contentions, learned
APP Ms. C. M. Shah submitted that the accused, during the
course of investigation, voluntarily made a statement that
they intend to show the place of the offence and thereafter,
they also made a statement that they intend to show the
shop of goldsmith, owned by accused nos.3 and 4 and the
I.O. in his testimony, narrated the contents of the
panchnama and merely panchas have not supported the
case of the prosecution would not be a ground to discard the
evidence of the I.O. on the aspect of panchnama, as referred
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/779/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
above. Thus, she submitted that I.O. seized the melted
stolen property and the son of accused no.3 PW:18
Faridmiya produced the ignots and the said ignot would
exactly tally with the weighed of the stolen ornaments for
which, there is no explanation on the part of the accused.
The allegation on the police of adopting pressure tactics
would substantiate from the explanation of the witness. It is
difficult to digest within day one from the arrest, the witness
PW:18 sold his house and produced the ignots to the police.
Thus, the accused no.3 found in the possession of the stolen
property soon after the incident of theft. In such
circumstances, the learned APP submitted that the accused
having a past antecedent of like nature and they are
involved in the so-many cases of theft and receiving stolen
properties and therefore, the Court below has not committed
any error either on facts or on law in holding the accused
appellants guilty of the offence and therefore, she prayed
that there being no merits in the appeals filed by the
accused and the same may be dismissed and having regard
to the nature of offence, and its impact on the society, the
appeal for enhancement of sentence may be allowed as the
Court below despite of the evidence that the accused are
habitual offender awarded a lesser sentence.
15. Before dealing with the rival contentions of the parties,
it would be useful to analyses the evidence of some of the
relevant witnesses:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/779/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
(1) Girdhar Vitthal Patel (PW:1) being a Manager of temple
and complainant, has stated that on 23.12.2009, in night
hours, someone had illegally entered into the temple and in
order to commit the theft of ornaments by housebreaking,
they stolen the ornaments worth Rs.3,98,000/-. The witness
has no personal knowledge about the incident nor he could
identify the seized melted ornaments.
(2) PW:2 and PW:9 - Somabhai Nai and Anand Perumal
were witness of arrest panchnama Exh.17 allegedly drawn
by the police. The witnesses have not supported the case of
the prosecution.
(3) PW:3 Manish Shah and PW:4 Babubhai Motibhai being a
witness of disclosure panchnama allegedly drawn by the I.O.
have not fully supported the case of the prosecution. The
place where they committed the theft. Both the witnesses
failed to depose the exact words of the panchnama at
Exh.19 that the accused on their own volition made a
statement that they would like to point out the place where
they committed the theft of ornaments.
(3) PW:5 Hitendrasinh Vihol and PW:6 Jassuji Vihol have
been examined to prove the arrest of the original accused
nos.3 and 4 against whom, the charge was to the effect that
they found in the possession of melted stolen ornaments.
However, records show that the witnesses have not support
the case of the prosecution.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/779/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
(4) PW:7 Yakibmiya Shaik and PW:8 Usmanghani Rangrej
have been examined to prove the seizure of ignots allegedly
produced by the PW:18 Faridmiya Shaikh. However, they
have not supported the case of the prosecution and they
could not identify the melted ornaments.
(5) PW:10 Vipulsinh Natvarsinh and PW:11 Pravinsinh
Javansinh have been examined to prove the factum of
panchnama at Exh.34 which is pointing out panchnama of
the shop of the goldsmith allegedly shown by the accused.
The witnesses declared hostile as they did not support the
case of the prosecution.
(6) PW:12 Ranjit Ganpatbhai being a Priest of the temple
was examined but facts remain that he has no personal
knowledge about the alleged offence.
(7) PW:15 Dilip Shah, a Trustee of the temple was
examined to prove the particulars of the ornaments for
which he has produced the statement of the ornaments
allegedly submitted to the office of the Charity
Commissioner.
(8) PW:18 Faridmiya Shaikh was examined to prove the
seizure of melted ornaments allegedly retained by the
accused no.3 in his shop at Vijapur. The witness - son of
accused no.3 against whom the charge of receiving stolen
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/779/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
property being proved by the Court below. The witness
PW:18 has not supported the case of the prosecution. The
witness in his testimony has stated that he had been called
by Mansa police and when he went to the police station, he
had been threatened that if he would not produce the
ornaments, then he will be framed in the offence like his
brother and father. The witness has stated that at the
relevant time, he was working with a private company at
Sanand and due to threaten administered by the police, he
managed the ignot as directed by the police and produced
the same by selling his house.
(9) PW:17 Tejmalsinh Solanki was examined to prove the
involvement of the accused nos.1 and 2. The witness has
stated that on 16.03.2010, when he was on duty as PSI,
Local Crime Branch, Mehsana, he had called the accused
nos.1 and 2 as suspect and he has a reason to believe that
they might have committed the theft of ornaments. The
witness has stated that upon interrogation of the accused,
they confessed about the alleged theft of ornaments. The
witnesses has stated that accused at the relevant time, was
under custody of Vishnagar Court and after informing Mansa
Police, they had been arrested on the basis of transfer
warrant. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted
that at the time of interrogation, the accused were not
arrested by LCB police.
(10) PW:16 Investigating Officer Faridmiya Malek has been
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/779/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
examined by the prosecution. The witness in his testimony
stated that on 23.12.2009, he was entrusted the
investigation of the case, and immediately, he took visit the
place of occurrence and drew the panchnama of the place in
the presence of two independent witnesses. The witness has
further stated that the offence was undetected and
thereafter, on 23.03.2010, by way of transfer warrant, he
arrested the accused Vishnu and Sunil. The witness has
further stated that during the course of investigation, the
accused showed the place of offence, and the same being
narrated in the panchnama Exh.19. The witness has further
stated that it revealed that the stolen ornaments were being
sold to the accused no.3 by accused nos.1 and 2 and the
accused who had sold the ornaments showed shop of the
accused no.3 and the same was narrated in the panchnamas
Exh.34. The witness has further stated that the son of
accused no.3 PW:18 had produced the melted ornaments
and the same had been seized vide panchnama at Exh.30.
The witness has further stated that he has recorded the
statement of witnesses, obtained purity certificate of the
ignot and then, handover the investigation to PW:19 V.N.
Yadav. Mr.V.N.Yadav, except filing the chargesheet, did
nothing towards the investigation. In the cross examination,
both the Investigating Officers could not answer about how
the accused arrested and what is the evidence on record
against them.
16. We have heard learned advocates for the respective
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/779/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
parties, perused the records and proceedings and findings of
conviction.
17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
present case, the issue arise for our consideration as to
whether the Court below was right in convicting the
appellants - original accused nos.1 and 2 for the offences
punishable under Sections 380, 457 read with Section 114 of
the IPC and accused no.3 for the offences punishable under
Section 413 of the IPC ?
18. As per the prosecution case, the accused nos.1 and 2
i.e. Vishnu Vaghari and Sunil Vaghari, on 18.11.2009, in
night hours, after breaking the temple, committed a theft of
golden and silver ornaments situated in the area of Village
Mansa and then, sold the stolen ornaments to accused no. 3
Amirmiya, who had retained the ornaments after melting the
same in the form of ignot. On the other hand, it was the
defence of the accused that they have been implicated on
the basis of suspicion and as such there is no iota of
evidence to prove that the accused had committed the theft
and sold the ornaments to accused no. 3 and accused no. 3
was found in the possession of stolen ornaments.
19. In order to appreciate the evidence as well as rival
contentions, it is necessary to refer the statutory provisions
of theft, and theft in dwelling house and house trespass by
night in order to commit offence of theft.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/779/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
20. Section 378 defines the term 'theft' which says that
whoever intending to take dishonestly any movable property
out of the possession of any person without that person's
consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said
to commit theft. Section 379 provides the punishment for
theft. Section 380 pertains to the theft in a dwelling house
which says that whoever commit thefts in any building which
building is used as a human dwelling or used for the custody
of the property shall be punished. Thus, to sustain conviction
under Section 380 the prosecution is to prove that the
accused committed a theft; that such theft was committed
in any building, etc.; and that such building, etc. was used
as a human dwelling. Section 457 pertains to lurking house
trespass by night or housebreaking by night in order to
committing any offence. The other relevant penal provision
required to be referred is dishonestly receiving stolen
property, knowing or having reason to believe that the same
to be stolen property and if the person is habitual then
Section 413 would be applicable because the punishment is
life imprisonment.
21. In the case on hand, after careful examination of the
evidence oral as well as documentary, It is not in dispute
that at the time of commission of the offence, i.e. on
23.12.2009, the incident of theft alleged to have been taken
place in the jain temple of Village Mansa and silver and gold
ornaments worth Rs.3,98,000/- were being stolen by thieves.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/779/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
At the time of offence, the CCTV camera had not been
installed by the temple. In the FIR, the allegations of theft
being made against the unknown theft. The appellants
accused admittedly were in judicial custody of Visnagar
Court for the offence of theft. In the month of March i.e. on
31.03.2010, the accused by way of transfer warrant arrested
by Mansa Police. The accused had confessed their guilt
before PW-17, when they had been called for interrogation
by the witness. In such circumstances, we are of the
considered opinion that, how PW-17 got information and on
what basis by suspicion he had called the accused, that is no
where explained by the prosecution, nor any evidence to
that effect being adduced. The LCB PI, PW-17, did not have
register any offence and sent the accused in a judicial
custody at Visnagar. The offence was undetected and the
police was clue less for about 3 months, who had committed
the theft. Therefore, there was no any evidence or
justification to arrest the accused on the basis of suspicion
merely based upon their guilt alleged to have been
confessed before PW-17.
It is settled position of law that, a confession made to a
police office is prohibited and cannot be admitted in the
evidence (Section 25 of the Evidence Act). Section 26
provides that no confession made by any person whilst he is
in police custody of a police office shall be proved against
such person unless it is made in the immediate presence of
the Magistrate. Therefore, confession of guilt cannot be read
against the accused, because at relevant time, they were
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/779/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
under the custody of the police. The prosecution mainly
relied on the circumstance that after the arrest, the accused
had pointed out the place of offence and thereafter, show
the shop of accused no. 3, which is suggestive of the fact
that the accused was knowing about the theft. In our
opinion, the said incriminating circumstance cannot be used
as proved against the accused. The panchas of both the
panchnama, either turned hostile or have not stated the
exact words spoken by the accused and contents of the
panchnama. The Investigating officer in his testimony also
fails to prove the factum of panchnama. In such
circumstances, when the place of offence, already been
discovered, the subsequent showing the place by the
accused, cannot be said to be a discovery of facts of place of
offence. In such circumstances, the incriminating
circumstances of pointing out the place of the offence and
shop of the goldsmith - accused no. 3 cannot be read as
evidence against the accused. So far as charge of receiving
and possessing stolen property by accused no.3 is
concerned, the prosecution mainly relied on the testimony of
PW-18 Faridbhai, who is son of accused no. 3. The fact
remains that, at relevant time, he was not in charge of the
shop and on the contrary, he was serving as a securi man
with private company and further, he has categorically
stated that under the pressure, he purchased the gold from
the market and produce in the form of ignot to the police
authority, as he was threatened by the police that, if he
would not produce, then, they will frame in the offence. If
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/779/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
had it been the case that the witness being an administrator
of the shop and in presence of accused and at their instance,
the melted ornaments were being produced, then, case
would be appreciated on a different footing. Therefore, the
recovery of melted ornaments becomes doubtful and
prosecution failed to prove that the melted ornaments in the
form of ignot were the stolen ornaments purchased by the
accused no.3 goldsmith. In such circumstances, we are not
agree with the contention raised by learned APP that in
absence of any explanation by accused no. 3 about the
seizure of ignot from his son, the accused presumed to be
thieves in view of Section 114A of the Evidence Act,
because, when the recovery is not proved, the question does
not arise for application of presumption clause.
22. For the reasons aforementioned, the prosecution
miserably failed to prove by adducing cogent, acceptable
and reliable evidence that, accused nos.1 and 2, on
18.11.2009, at night hours, after breaking the temple,
committed a theft of gold and silver ornaments and same
were received or retained by the accused no. 3 knowing it to
be a property acquired by the theft.
23. For the reasons aforementioned, the Court below was
not right in convicting the accused for the offences, as
referred above, as it is the fundamental principles of criminal
jurisprudence is that the burden of proof squarely rests on
the prosecution and there can be no conviction on the basis
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/779/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
of surmises and conjectures or suspicion howsoever grave it
may be. The onus of the prosecution cannot be discharged
by referring to very strong suspicion and existence of highly
suspicion factors to inculpate the accused. It is no doubt true
that the accused have in their credit so many cases of like
nature but such past records cannot be by itself overweight
as far as legal proof is concerned. (Digambar Vaishnav
Vs. State of Chhatisgarh, 2019 (4) SCC 522). Thus, in
the facts of the present case, after reanalysis of the
evidence, the prosecution failed to prove the charges
beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants accused.
The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed
against the appellants accused is not sustainable in law and
accordingly, deserves to be set aside and are hereby set
aside.
24. In the result, the appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 90,
88, 62 of 2011 stand allowed. The judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 31.12.2010 passed in Sessions
Case No.47 of 2010 is hereby set aside. The appellants
accused stand acquitted of the offence under Sections 380,
457, 413, read with Section 114 of the IPC. The accused are
on bail. Their bail bond is cancelled and surety is discharged.
Fine amount deposited if any, be refunded to them. R and P
be sent back to the Trial Court concerned forthwith.
25. In view of the setting aside the conviction and
sentence, the enhancement State Appeal i.e. Criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/779/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
Appeal No.781 of 2011 does not survive and accordingly,
stands disposed of.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
Rakesh
