0

“The Uncovering of the Golden Robbery: The Supreme Court’s Decision on the Intertwined Webs of Robbery, Theft, and Dacoity Concerning Priceless Gold Instruments”

Blog , , ,

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  

 

Click to view judgment.

0

“We are bothered by the decision rendered by the High Court in the instance of extreme provocation and assault; Supreme Court overturns decision of higher court in case of grave assault.”

Blog , , , , ,

Case Title: Ramayan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh 

Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No.14988 of 2023 

Dated On: 19th April, 2024 

Quorum:  Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma  

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

The facts of the case revolves around one Ramayan Singh who is the appellant and also the original complainant. The facts of the case reveal that a First Information Report (the “FIR”) was lodged by the Appellant i.e., the Original Complainant, on 03.01.2022 stating that on 02.01.2022 at around 3:30 PM, the Appellant along with his uncle i.e., Jitendra Singh (the “Deceased”) and his driver i.e., Rahul were returning from Bankati Bazar when their vehicle was stopped by the accused person(s) including inter alia (i) Respondent No. 2; and (ii) Punit Pal. The accused persons verbally abused the Deceased and proceeded to shatter the windows of the vehicle with iron rods. Subsequently they dragged the Deceased out of the vehicle – and physically assaulted the Deceased with iron rods, hockey sticks and bats with an intention to kill him. 

Upon stealing the deceased’s gold chain and mobile phones from both the driver and the deceased, the accused fled the scene of the incident. After being taken to the Primary Health Centre in Bankati, the deceased was taken to the District Hospital in Basti and then to Sahara Hospital in Lucknow, where he passed away on February 10, 2022, as a result of his severe injuries.  

The deceased person had injuries to his or her head, hand, and knee, according to an inquest report that was written on the same day, February 10, 2022. (ii) A post-mortem was performed, and the results showed that the deceased had four serious antemortem head injuries. Crucially, ante mortem head injuries were found to be the cause of death, leaving the patient in a coma. 

The Original Complainant, who filed the current appeals, is the appellant in this case. In it, he challenges the validity of the order(s) that the High Court issued, expanding (i) Respondent No. 2 and (ii) placing Punit Pal on bail in connection with the FIR.  

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT: 

The appellant contended, rather vehemently, The High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant bail to Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal given the following facts: (i) accusations had been made against the accused individual(s); (ii) Respondent No. 2 had been found to be the owner of the weapon used in the assault of the deceased; and (iii) the Trial Court had issued well-reasoned orders rejecting bail requests for Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal.  

It was also further alleged that there is a genuine and likely risk to the accused person(s)’s capacity to influence witnesses given the tremendous influence they have in the area—including Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal, among others—that all of the businesses close to the scene of the incident stayed closed for ten (10) days following the incident.  

The counsel on behalf of the appellants alleged that Punit Pal and Respondent No. 2 have abused their power. Specifically, it was argued that Appellant himself was the target of threats from Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal, and that a named witness had previously requested police protection from the Trial Court due to threats made against him while the case was pending.  

that Punit Pal and Respondent No. 2 have abused their power. Specifically, it was argued that Appellant himself was the target of threats from Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal, and that a named witness had previously requested police protection from the Trial Court due to threats made against him while the case was pending.  

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 

In a vehement argument, Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal made the following claims in court: That while Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal have been complying with the trial, the Appellant has put the proceedings before the Trial Court on hold. 

That the accusation made against Punit Pal and Respondent No. 2 about the extension of threats to the appellant was completely false and, in reality, was part of a deliberate attempt to discredit Punit Pal and Respondent No. 2.  

It was further alleged that there was no formal agreement regarding the purported deal between the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Sharma and his wife Mrs. Ashu, even though the second respondent (Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal) claimed to have given the appellant Rs. 1 lakh in cash. Remarkably, the complainants in this instance were not Mr. Pankaj Sharma or Mrs. Ashu, from whose bank account the money was purportedly moved. Despite these contentions, the second respondent did not appear to contest the matter. 

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS:  

  • S.147 OF IPC- Punishment for rioting. If someone is found guilty of rioting, they could face up to two years in prison of any kind, a fine, or both.  
  • S.148 OF IPC- Rioting, armed with deadly weapon. Anyone found guilty of rioting, carrying a lethal weapon, or using anything else that could be used as a weapon of offence and result in death can be penalised with a fine, three years’ worth of jail, or both.  
  • S.120B OF IPC- Punishment of criminal conspiracy. If this Code does not specifically address the punishment of a criminal conspiracy, then anyone found guilty of conspiring to commit an offence that carries a sentence of death, 2[life imprisonment], or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or more will be punished as though they had assisted in the commission of the offence. 
  • S. 323 OF IPC- Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. Anyone who intentionally causes harm, with the exception of situations covered by section 334, faces a period of imprisonment of any kind up to a year, a fine up to a thousand rupees, or both. 
  • S.504 OF IPC- PINISHMENT FOR INSULTING SOMEONE INTENTIONALLY. Anybody who willfully offends someone and provokes them in the hope that the person will break the peace or commit another crime faces a maximum two-year sentence in either type of jail, a fine, or both.  

 

 

COURT’S ANANLYSIS AND JUDGMENT:  

The court meticulously solved the issue at hand by observing that the accused person was involved in a widespread daylight murder that resulted in the closure of a market for a prolonged period of ten (10) days due to their overwhelming influence in the area. As a result, in our considered opinion, the High Court ought not to have granted Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal bail in relation to the proceedings arising from the FIR on account of (i) the seriousness of the crime; (ii) the conduct of the accused person(s); and (iii) the overall impact of the crime on society at large.  

The court held that as a result, the contested orders, dated 24.04.2023 and 31.10.2023 respectively, which granted accused Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal and Punit Pal bail, cannot be upheld in the previously described circumstances and are now set aside.  

The court, In the above terms, accepted the appeals.  The accused Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal and Punit Pal’s bail bond(s) were revoked. The person or people mentioned above were placed under custody right away. To facilitate further action and required compliance, a copy of this judgement was sent to the Trial Court in Basti, Uttar Pradesh. The Trial Court was then further instructed to wrap up the case as soon as possible, ideally within a year of receiving a copy of this judgement.   

 

“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  

Click to view judgment.

 

 

 

0

Absence of Proper Identification Parade raises Doubt on the Admissibility of the Deposition by the Court: Supreme Court

Blog , , , , ,

Case title – Jafar Vs State of Kerala

Case no. – Criminal Appeal No. 1607 OF 2009

Decision on – March 15, 2024

Quoram – Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Facts of the case

In this case, the case of the prosecution was that in 2004, the accused persons came with a vehicle to the building where retail shops of Kerala State Beverages Corporation were situated with an intention to commit dacoity. In consonance of the intent, they were armed with deadly weapons like iron lever and wooden bar. The appellant kicked on the naval portion of the security guard at the gate and beat him with an iron lever on the right leg which resulted in fracture. The appellant was convicted under Section 397 read with Section 395 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 10,000.

Other accused persons beat him with the wooden bar on various parts of his body and then tied his legs and hands with bath towels and made him lie on the cot. Thereafter, they fastened his body on the cot with a piece of bed sheet and the remaining piece was pushed into his mouth. They mishandled him and then committed robbery of mobile phone, wrist watch, and torch. They also destroyed the light in the building and lock of the shutters of the retail shop. Hence, a case was registered against the accused.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class took cognizance of the matter only against accused No. 2, 3, and 5 as other accused were absconded. The court found accused Nos. 2(Appellant) and 3 guilty and as such convicted them for the said offences.

Submission of the Parties

The Counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction is based on no evidence and contended that the appeal deserves to be allowed.

The Counsel for the State, on the contrary, submitted that both the Courts had concurrently, upon appreciation of the evidence, found the appellant to be guilty and hence, no interference would be warranted.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Court observed that the conviction of the accused was primarily based on the deposition of PW-1, who was a security guard. The Court noted that PW-1 identified the accused persons since the police had shown him only those two people. Thereby, concluded that the identification of the appellant by PW 1 is quite doubtful as there no identification parade conducted.

The Court pointed out that in the absence of proper identification parade being conducted, the identification for the first time in the Court cannot be said to be free from doubt.

The Court thus held that the judgment of the Kerala High Court dismissing the appeal and the Trial Court convicting the appellant are not sustainable in law.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned judgment, and acquitted the appellant.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement