The State Of A.P., vs Karakul Bushan
2022 Latest Caselaw 4955 Tel

                 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

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.

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.

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

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

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1145 OF 2009

Dated: 28.09.2022

kvs