Case Title: Hansraj v The State of M.P.
Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No(s). 4626 of 2024
Dated On: 19th April, 2024
Quorum: Justice B R Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
FACTS OF THE CASE:
This is an appeal filed by one Hansraj against the judgment of a single judge bench of M.P. High Court. The appellant was found guilty of the crimes specified in Section 394 read with Section 397 of the IPC and was found guilty of seven years of hard labour in prison, a fine of Rs. one thousand, and three months of additional hard labour if the amount is not paid.
On December 12, 1998, at around 10:30 am, as the complainant Bhagu Bai was making her way to her field, someone approached her from behind, forced her to close her eyes, attacked her with a knife, and took her silver bracelet, necklace, and anklet. Following the commission of the crime and causing harm to the complainant, the attacker fled the scene. In the First Information Report (FIR), the complainant claimed that she was unable to see or identify the attacker.
The complainant, Bhagu Bai, was on her way to her field when someone approached her from behind, forced her to close her eyes, attacked her with a knife, and took her silver jewellery (satte), which she was wearing on her feet, along with a silver chain. The claimed individual fled the scene after carrying out the mentioned deed. The case is unique in that the complainant herself admitted in her First Information Report that she was unable to see or identify the subject of the complaint.
On December 14, 1998, the appellant was taken into custody due to suspicions. It is purported that the accused appellant made a confession or disclosure statement while being questioned by the police, and such statement was documented as Memorandum (Exhibit P-11). It is also claimed that the Investigating Officer (PW-12), acting on the aforementioned disclosure statement, retrieved the silver goods that the defendants are alleged to have looted after committing an assault against the complainant.
Exhibit P-12 shows that these items were taken in accordance with the panchnama. The prosecution further asserted that the complainant had provided the identification of the objects that had been confiscated at the accused’s request to an executive magistrate.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:
The appellant’s learned counsel argues that the appeal was chosen because the trial court’s decision and order were not in line with the case’s facts or the law. The submission goes on to say that the accused was not immediately seen or identified by the complainant or other witnesses, as evidenced by the complainant’s filed police report and the witness statements that were recorded by the police.
However, in the witness statements that were taped in front of the trial court, they claimed to have seen the appellant, recognised him, and filed the complaint using his name. He goes on to say that no identification was provided for the products or property that was seized. On the basis of the recovery of the objects alone, the appellant/accused cannot be linked to the offence because the seizure was not proven, and the property was not identified.
The primary contention of the appellant’s learned counsel was that the Executive Magistrate identified the articles/ornaments according to the prosecution’s findings, but the prosecution has not produced the relevant Executive Magistrate for evidence before the learned trial Court. Therefore, it is dubious that the identification of the items or jewellery purportedly retrieved from the appellant can be trusted, and therefore cannot be the basis for a conviction.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
The respondents vehemently alleged that only a cursory examination of the excerpted section of the investigating officer’s deposition would indicate that he did not recount the accused’s exact words when he made the disclosure statement.
Respondents strongly contended that a simple review of the segment of the investigating officer’s deposition that was excerpted would show that the officer did not accurately recall the accused’s comments at the time of the disclosure statement.
The state’s or the respondent’s learned public prosecutor has prayed for the criminal appeal to be dismissed and supported the trial court’s ruling. He also claimed to have taken the accused to the Beed and recovered the silver ornaments, not that the accused had guided him to the location where the objects were hidden.
The learned public prosecutor for the state or the respondent has pleaded for the criminal appeal to be dismissed and supported the decision made by the trial court. It was not that the accused had led him to the place where the items were concealed; rather, he asserted that he had escorted the accused to the Beed and retrieved the silver ornaments.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
- S.374(2) of CrPC- Anyone found guilty at a trial conducted by a Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Judge, or any other court in which they or any other person found guilty at the same trial have been sentenced to more than seven years in prison.
- S.394 IPC- Voluntarily causing hurt by committing robbery. Any individual who intentionally causes harm during the commission or attempt of a robbery, along with any other parties involved, faces a maximum sentence of one year in prison or a harsh sentence of up to ten years in prison, as well as a fine.
- S.397 IPC- Robbery, or dacoity, with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. should the perpetrator employ a lethal weapon during the robbery or dacoity, inflict serious injury on anyone, or attempt to cause death or serious injury to any individual, they will be sentenced to a minimum of seven years in jail.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court was of the view that it is important to note that complainant Bhagu Bai (PW-3) attempted to strengthen her case during her sworn testimony by identifying the accused in court. However, the learned trial court and the High Court did not rely on this identification evidence, and the case was found proven solely on the basis of the recovery of ornaments.
The court futher observed that Bhagu Bai (PW-3), the complainant, stated that she was able to identify the ornaments that were found during test identification procedures at the accused’s request. Under cross-examination, she did, however, frank admit that she had recognised her jewellery after the police had identified it.
It’s also critical to remember that the Investigating Officer (PW-12), who took the accused’s disclosure statement and carried out the recovery, failed to provide the legal proof of the disclosure memo.
The court further held that it had no reluctance in stating that the prosecution utterly failed to substantiate the allegations made by the accused to the Investigating Officer (PW-12), which resulted in the recovery of the silver items that the accused had allegedly stolen from the complainant. It’s also critical to remember that the prosecution did not present any proof that the seized items were kept safe in the malkhana or that they were sealed when they were recovered.
Because of this, the law does not respect the recovery of the jewellery at the accused’s request or the identification of it, and it is not reliable. To link the accused appellant to the offence, the prosecution presented no additional evidence.
Therefore, the accused appellant’s guilt, as found by the learned trial court and upheld by the High Court, could not be supported by any concrete or trustworthy evidence that was accessible on file. Thus, the appeal was justified and granted as such. Hereby, the challenged rulings from the learned trial court and the high court, dated October 20, 1999, and December 21, 2022, respectively, were quashed and set aside.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora
