The State Of A.P. Rep, By Its Pp vs Rama Chauhan 5 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3052 Tel

     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

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

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

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

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

dr