STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. PHERU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals by grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India arise out of the common judgment rendered by the High Court of Allahabad acquitting all these three appellants of various offences with which they all along with one Dr. R. V. S. Sharma stood charged, tried, convicted and sentenced for various terms of imprisonment. Dr. R. V. S. Verma, who was arrayed as accused No. 1 died during the pendency of the trial and as such the trial against him abated. Therefore, the trial went on as against RP Agarwal, Mahfooz ali Khan, Pheru Singh and Mohd. Ismail Khan (who were arrayed as accused Nos. 2 to 5).

(2.) THE Trial Court framed as many as ten charges against all the accused persons put up for trial under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation, the gist of which we would presently mention, they being that all the five accused on or about 1-3-67 in Mainpuri city entered into a criminal conspiracy, by agreeing to hush up the offence of theft or criminal breach of trust in respect of shortage in Government cash to the tune of Rs. 9600.00 on the office of the District Medical Officer of Health Mainpuri and make up the same from the funds of B. D. Bhargava, who was the Head Clerk in the Department under threat of dire consequences, and in furtherance of the said conspiracy on the evening of 1-3-67, Dr. Verma took Bhargava to Kotwali, Mainpuri in a jeep bearing registration No. UPD 9461 driven by Mahfooz Ali and in collusion with Pheru Singh, Mohd. Ismail wrongfully confined Bhargava in the Police Station from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m., committed extortion by putting Bhargava in fear of injury to him and dishonestly induced him to deliver money and towards that end took Bhargava to Agra on the same night by the same jeep and wrongfully restrained him .from 11 p.m. on 1-3-67 to 6 p.m. or 7 p.m. on 2-3-67; Dr. Verma, Pheru Singh and Mohd.

(3.) ON being aggrieved by the above judgment, convicted accused namely Mohd. Isamil (Accused No. 5), Pheru Singh (Accused No. 4), Mahfooz Ali (Accused No. 3), and R. P. Agarwal (Accused No. 2) preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.333/76, 35476,357/76 and 374/76 respectively question the correctness and legality of their convictions. The High Court by a re-appraisal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution concluded that the prosecution has not decisively proved the case and the evidence inclusive of the circumstantial evidence are inconsistent with the presumption of innocence of the accused and as such the appellants/accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Consequently for the reasons mentioned in the judgment, the High Court allowed all the appeals by its common judgment by setting aside the convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.