The Jharkhand High Court set aside the order convicting the appellants under Section 395 IPC and held that the alleged articles were recovered from the appellants after two months and thus the prosecution will not get the benefit of Section 114(A) of the Evidence Act and since in the present case the property had been recovered after two months, the accused cannot be charged for the offence for keeping the stolen property.

Brief Facts:

The petitioners appealed against the judgment passed by the trial court which convicted them under Section 395 of the IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment of seven years.

Contentions of the Applicant:

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the confessional statement of the accused which led to the recovery of the property cannot be admissible as evidence as the same was not exhibited in the case. It was further argued that the seizure list itself was doubtful as one of them was not examined and the other one was declared hostile and the TIP was also not conducted in accordance with the law.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state opposed the prayer of acquittal and contended that the trial court did not commit any error in convicting the appellants.

Observations of the Court:

The court observed that since the confession of the accused which led to the discovery was not exhibited, the same cannot be admissible as evidence. It was further stated that one of the seizure list witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and another was not examined by the prosecution which creates a doubt in the seizure itself. It was further observed that the TIP was not conducted as per the settled procedure and the accused thus deserves the benefit of the doubt.

It was further observed that the alleged articles were recovered from the appellants after two months and thus the prosecution will not get the benefit of Section 114(A) of the Evidence Act and since in the present case the property had been recovered after two months, the accused cannot be charged for the offence for keeping the stolen property.

The court observed that the case demonstrated several lacunae in the prosecution case and the trial court was in error in ignoring these.

The decision of the Court:

The court allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the impugned order of the trial court which convicted the accused.

Case Title: Jolsan Ekka @ Jolsan Minz and ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

Case No.: Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1582 of 2004

Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Amit Kr. Choubey and Mr. Mohit Prakash

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin

Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com

Picture Source :

 
Kritika