HRIDYANAND SHUKLA Vs. YADUPATI CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos.1122 of 2004, 873 of 2004, 1507 of 2004, 1502 of 2004 and 1036 of 2004 and Criminal Reference No.7 of 2004, dated 01.09.2005.

(2.) The said appeals were preferred by the 5 accused persons viz. Mangaroo (A-1), Yadupati Chauhan (A-2), Bhanwar Pal (A-3), Deepak alias Chanda (A-4 and Arti Devi (A-5), respectively against the judgment of conviction dated 06.07.2004 and the order imposing sentence dated 07.07.2004 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Deoria in Sessions Trial No.210 of 2003. By the impugned judgment and order, the high Court has allowed Criminal Appeal Nos.1122 of 2004 and 873 of 2004, acquitting A-1 and A-2 of the charges under Sections 396 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("the I.P.C." for short). As a consequence of A-1's acquittal, the Criminal Reference No.7 of 2004 made by the Ld.Sessions Judge, under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code" for short), for confirmation of death sentence of A-1 is rejected by the High Court. The Criminal Appeal Nos. 1502 and 1507 of 2004 filed by A-3 and A-4, respectively have been partly allowed by the High Court setting aside their conviction and sentences under Sections 396 and 397 of the I.P.C., but maintaining their conviction under Section 412 of the I.P.C. The High Court has dismissed Criminal Appeal 1036 of 2004 filed by A-5 and confirmed her conviction and sentence under Section 412 of the I.P.C.

(3.) This appeal is filed by the complainant, whereby he questions the judgment and order of the High Court on the ground that the High Court, without properly re-appreciating the evidence on record, ought not to have acquitted A-1 and A-2 of the offences under Sections 396 and 397 of the I.P.C. Assailing the impugned judgment, Ld. Amicus would submit that the High Court fell into error for convicting A-3, A-4 and A-5 under Section 412 of the I.P.C. instead of prosecuting them under Section 411 of the I.P.C. in respect of recovery of stolen articles.