MANJU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants.

(2.) THE appellant in Crl. A. 1169/2013 was arrayed as Accused No. 5 before the court below and the appellant in Crl. A 1143/2013 was arrayed as Accused No. 2 before the court below.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants would uniformly contend that the court below was not justified in arriving at its findings on the basis of evidence which was clearly inconsistent and could not have supported the case of the prosecution. It is pointed out that the prosecution had relied on the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and PW -6 in order to conclude that the accused had robbed the complainant, as alleged. It is emphasized that the manner in which the incident is said to have occurred would indicate that the complainant was hardly in a position to note the appearance and the physical features of the accused if he was held from be behind the money having been snatched from his person, and if the accused had fled, the complainant would have hardly had time to register their physical features and be in a position to recognize them. Further, the admitted circumstance that Accused Nos. 4 and 5 were not immediately apprehended as alleged and that their presence having been secured later, on the alleged voluntary statements of Accused Nos. 1 to 3, would hardly have enabled the accused to recognize Accused Nos. 4 and 5 at all and the accused having been said to have been recognized in court at the time of trial is therefore, unbelievable and could not have been accepted by the court below. Further, the inconsistent statements of the several witnesses as to the direction in which the accused are said to have run away and further the narration of the events insofar as the complainant having come from a particular direction, also being inconsistent, the court below was not justified in arriving at findings in the accused being visited with serious punishment of rigorous imprisonment of five years. Therefore, the burden of proof was heavy on the prosecution, which it has failed to discharge and in the light of these glaring discrepancies, the court below was not justified in arriving at its findings.