‘Circumstantial Evidence Needs To Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ | Rajasthan High Court Acquits Appellants Convicted Under Section of 395 IPC

‘Circumstantial Evidence Needs To Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ | Rajasthan High Court Acquits Appellants Convicted Under Section of 395 IPC

Recently, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur allowed the criminal appeal filed by the convicts and acquitted them from the charges U/s 395 IPC (Punishment for dacoity). The Hon’ble High Court has set aside the conviction order passed by the learned Trial court after finding no credible evidence against the accused in alleged incident.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The victims worked in a Jewellery shop. The owner of the shop gave 45 lacs Rs. in cash and a DD of 36 lacs to the victims to carry it to Ahmedabad. It was alleged that when the victim were enroute, 4-5 policemen stopped their vehicle for checking, while victims were not on board. The persons who were personating as policemen allegedly took the money from the car and left 1 lakh cash only. When the victims reached Ahmedabad they found that bag was missing and suspected those policemen as dacoits. F.I.R. was lodged. Certain recoveries were made. Charge sheet filed. Learned Trial court took cognizance and after trial the appellants were convicted and now they filed the instant appeal.

CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANTS

Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants in both the appeals, have vehemently and fervently urged that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Judge is contrary to law and facts. The learned trial Judge has not appreciated the prosecution evidence in light of the checks available on record. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

It is also pleaded that admittedly, the accused persons were not known to the aforesaid star witnesses Chhotu Khan and Hanuman Singh, however, no test identification parade was conducted to ascertain the fact as to who were the persons on the fateful night of incident when the car was stopped and searched near the police station Bhim. In absence of identification of the accused, booking and arraigning the appellants as accused persons is against the spirit of criminal law. It was imperative upon the prosecution to establish the fact before the trial Court that it were the appellants who conducted search of the disputed vehicle in question so that a doubt of theft of the amount could be cast upon them.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that ample evidence has been produced on behalf of the prosecution which got corroboration from the fact of recovery of cash and demand draft. The judgment impugned is a well reasoned judgment requiring no interference of this Court and as such, no case of their acquittal is made out, therefore, the appeals are liable to be dismissed.

HON’BLE COURT’S OBSERVATIONS

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Farzand Ali has essentially observed that no eye-witness is on the record hence the case is to be judged on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

The Hon’ble court further while examining the evidences observed that “There is nothing on record from which it can be safely inferred that these appellants were present at the spot to stop the car and to conduct search therein. Normally in a Police Station around 20 to 60 policemen are deployed ranking from Constable to Police Inspector then how these appellants were booked without any specific evidence regarding identity..

The entire judgment of conviction is based upon the alleged recovery of the currency notes and a DD from the accused but without ascertaining the vital fact that it were the appellants who, in fact, committed the crime of alleged dacoity which has not been done in this case. The same is not permissible under rule of law and rule of prudence as well as under the established principles of criminal jurisprudence and the prime duty of the prosecution was to establish the fact beyond reasonable doubt that it were the appellants only who stopped the car, conducted the search and took away their property. In absence of such ascertainment and identification, if the accused-appellants are made to stand trial for the offence of dacoity, then, the same infringes their fundamental right to life and personal liberty as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. One cannot be arraigned as an accused in a case of robbery who was not previously known to the victim without placing the culprit in a test identification parade. It has to be done during the course of the investigation so as to verify the direction of the investigation as well as he is required to be identified during the course of trial because the identification in trial is the only substantive piece of evidence. Booking an accused for an offence of robbery without his identity certainly impinges his personal liberty and this may lead the court to an erroneous decision.”

Hon’ble court then relied on Dana Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2002 SC 3325, wherein the importance of test identification parade has been discussed.

Further, his lordship held that “The law on circumstantial evidence is well settled. In every case which is totally based upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances put forth must singularly point towards the guilt of the accused only, shutting out every other possibility or all other hypothesis. The cardinal principles for appreciation of circumstantial evidence have been propounded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case titled as Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 as per which the circumstances upon which the case of the prosecution is based should be of a definite tendency and must be un-erringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstances if taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there remains no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and no one else and the evidence should be incapable of explanation of any reasonable hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused. It should be inconsistent with his innocence and must be consistent only with his guilt.

“In the cases based upon circumstantial evidence, the twofold requirements that the law postulates are firstly, every link in the chain of circumstances necessary for establishing the guilt of the accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and secondly, it must point towards the guilt of the accused.”

Lastly on the issue Whether the offence U/s 395 IPC is made out ? The Hon’ble court very categorically observed that no ingredients are fulfilled either for Theft or for Robbery and it was held that “It is emanating from the record that the learned trial judge has failed to take into account the legal aspect of the matter which is the spine of the case while appreciating the evidence and reaching the conclusion of guilt of the accused and thus, the same does not stand firm on its ground.”

“It is doctrine of Criminal Jurisprudence that the burden to prove its case always lies upon the prosecution and the standard is to prove the case beyond every shadow of reasonable doubt and the position of the accused in it is not more than that of a mute spectator. Neither it is expected from him to prove the fact that he is innocent nor does the onus lie upon him to disprove the charge.”

In view of the above, criminal appeal was allowed and accused/appellants were acquitted.

Case no. :-   S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 863/2001

Order date :- 02.06.2023