Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Vivek Arora" on 9 June, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
9th JUNE, 2023
GOVERNMENT APPEAL NO. 418 of 2007
Between:
State of Uttarakhand .....Appellant
and
Vivek Arora .....Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. S.S. Adhikari, Deputy
Advocate General with
Mr. Balvinder Singh, Brief
Holder.
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi,
Advocate holding brief of
Mr. Vivek Shukla,
Advocate.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Present Government Appeal is directed against the
judgment dated 30.04.2004, passed by learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge/ Ist Fast Track Court, Haridwar in
Sessions Trial No. 29 of 2001, "State vs. Vivek Arora", by
which, the respondent-accused has been acquitted of the
charge under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 31.08.2000,
Senior Sub-Inspector Yogendra Pal Singh Bhadoriya (PW1),
Sub-Inspector Ravindra Kumar Chamoli (PW2), Senior Sub-
Inspector J.P. Juyal (PW3) and Inspector Sanjay Singh
(PW9) along with other police personnel reached the house
of co-accused Ranveer alias Rajesh and arrested him. Co-
accused Vinay was accompanying the police personnel. On
interrogation, co-accused Ranveer alias Rajesh told that he
counterfeited fake currency notes along with Vivek Arora
(present respondent-accused) and one Shyam and supplied
the same to the customer. Respondent-accused Vivek Arora
was arrested on 31.08.2000 at 10.30 p.m. on the pointing of
co-accused Ranveer alias Rajesh. Nine thousand fake
currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- were
recovered from the possession of the present respondent-
accused. A recovery memo was prepared. In spite of an
endeavour, no public witness could be secured. On
01.09.2000, computer, printer, monitor and counterfeit
currency notes were recovered from the room of Shyam on
the pointing of co-accused Ranveer alias Rajesh and present
respondent-accused.
3. At present, this Court is concerned only with the
case of Vivek Arora, present respondent-accused.
4. An FIR (Case Crime No. 707 of 2000) (Ext. Ka. 5)
was registered against the present respondent-accused.
After completing the investigation, charge-sheet (Ext. Ka.
15) was submitted by Sub-Inspector Ram Chandra Tripathi
(PW10) against the present respondent-accused.
5. The charge was framed against the respondent-
accused in respect of offence punishable under Section
489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondent-accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. (PW1) Senior Sub-Inspector Yogendra Pal Singh
Bhadoriya, (PW2) Sub-Inspector Ravindra Kumar Chamoli,
(PW3) Senior Sub-Inspector J.P. Juyal and (PW9) Inspector
Sanjay Singh were member of the raiding party. They are
witnesses to the recovery and arrest of the respondent-
accused. (PW4) Constable Brahampal Singh is the scriber of
the First Information Report of Case Crime No. 707 of 2000
(Ext. Ka. 5). (PW7) A.S.I. Surendra Singh, (PW8) S.I. Mohan
Shyam Saraswat and (PW10) S.I. Ram Chandra Tripathi are
Investigating Officers.
7. Statements of the respondent-accused were
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, wherein, he denied the entire evidence of
the prosecution.
8. Respondent-accused has examined Gagan Deep
(DW1) in his defence evidence.
9. Learned Trial Court heard arguments, appreciated
the evidence on record and held that the prosecution has
failed to prove its case against the respondent-accused
beyond all reasonable doubt.
10. Heard Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the appellant and Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, learned
counsel holding brief of Mr. Vivek Shukla, learned counsel
for the respondent-accused.
11. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate
General, contended that learned Trial Court has completely
overlooked the glaring facts of the case, according to which,
the involvement of the respondent-accused, has been fully
proved. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal is
not justified in the eyes of law.
12. On the other hand, Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-accused, has
supported the impugned judgment.
13. The law is well settled that the judgment of
acquittal strengthen the presumption of the innocence of the
accused. Equally, it is the duty of the Court to see that the
guilt do not escape punishment. Therefore, I have carefully
assessed the evidence, adduced by the prosecution.
14. According to the evidence of Senior Sub-Inspector
Yogendra Pal Singh Bhadoriya (PW1), Senior Sub-Inspector
J.P. Juyal (PW3) and Inspector Sanjay Singh (PW9), when
the respondent-accused was arrested, he confessed his guilt
before them.
15. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is
broadly worded and it excludes from evidence a confession
made by the accused to a police officer under any
circumstances and a confession made by a person while he
was in the custody of the police is also inadmissible under
Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 unless made in
the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
16. The charge was framed against the respondent-
accused that two fake currency notes of Rs. 100-100 were
recovered from his possession.
17. (PW2) Sub-Inspector Ravindra Kumar Chamoli has
stated in his examination-in-chief that he did not remember
what was recovered from which accused. According to the
Senior Sub-Inspector J.P. Juyal (PW3) and Inspector Sanjay
Singh (PW9), nine thousand currency notes of 100-100 were
recovered from the pocket of the pants worn by the
respondent-accused. Seeing the recovery memo, Inspector
Sanjay Singh (PW9) has stated that according to the
recovery memo, two rupees were recovered from the
accused and he is not able to confirm whether the fact of
two rupees being recovered is true or false. According to the
Senior Sub-Inspector Yogendra Pal Singh Bhadoriya (PW1),
two fake currency notes of 100-100 were recovered from the
pocket of the accused, but, when the alleged recovered
currency notes were taken out from the bundle at the time
of his evidence, ninety notes of 100-100 were found out of
it.
18. The case of prosecution is that when the police
party along with respondent-accused reached Laxmi
Narayan Dharamshala, Shyam was seen running away from
the gate of the said Dharamshala. The lock of room no. 203
of the said Dharamshala, in which Shyam was staying, was
broken in the presence of the manager and the staff of
Dharamshala and the articles recovered from the said room
were sealed on the spot.
19. Contrary to the case of the prosecution, it has
been stated by Inspector Sanjay Singh (PW9) that when
Shyam was seen for the first time, he was in the lane. He
has stated in his cross-examination that the articles
recovered in Dharamshala were not sealed on the spot.
20. The alleged recovery dated 31.08.2000 was made
in the absence of independent witness, whereas, the
statements of the witnesses of police regarding the said
recovery do not inspire confidence.
21. The prosecution has neither disclosed the name of
the manager and the staff of the said Dharamshala, in
whose presence the alleged recovery is said to have taken
place, nor the signature of any of them is on the recovery
memo, nor the register of Dharamshala has been produced
by the prosecution. Under the said circumstances, it appears
that if manager or staff members of the Dharamshala had
been examined by the prosecution, their evidence would not
have supported the prosecution's case.
22. The prosecution has to establish beyond all
reasonable doubt that the alleged offence was committed by
the respondent-accused. Even grave suspicion cannot take
place of proof.
23. On a detailed examination of the evidence,
produced by the prosecution, in my considered view, the
prosecution has failed to establish the commission of the
alleged offence by the respondent-accused beyond all
reasonable doubt. Therefore, this Court upholds the view
taken by the Trial Court.
24. As a result, the instant Government Appeal is
liable to be dismissed. The said Government Appeal is
dismissed accordingly.
__________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
th
Dt: 9 June, 2023
Shiksha
