STATE Vs. KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Addl. S. P. P. has advanced a very valid argument in this case wherein he points out that the offence was one under Section 349, I. P. C. in so far as the two accused are alleged to have snatched a Managalsutra worth Rs. 2,500/- and cash worth Rs. 250/- from Smt. Vasanthan near the Binny Mills Railway Bridge at Bangalore City. Learned counsel submitted that in this case, the accused were apprehended and some property was recovered at their instance and he submitted that this recovery alone was sufficient to establish their guilt. Further more, his contention is that unfortunately, the main evidence of Smt. Vasantha is not before the Court because even though summons and a non-bailable warrant was issued, the prosecution apparently did not produce her. Irrespective of the non-production of the complainant, the learned S. P. P. submitted that these are serious anti-social offences and that not only should the Courts be extremely particular about ensuring that such accused do not get away and are deterrently dealt with but further more, he also advanced the submission that if there are any lacunae on the part of the prosecuting agencies that appropriate and stringent directions must be issued in order to ensure that the rule of law prevails.

(2.) AS far as the first aspect of the argument is concerned, even though there is evidence with regard to the recovery, we find it impossible to hold that this material would be good enough to sustain a conviction because there is one aspect of the case which the prosecution must establish before the accused can be convicted namely the aspect of identification. In offences of the present type, dual identification is necessary because the complainant will have to identify the accused as the persons who committed the offence and secondly, the complainant would also have to identify the property as otherwise, the recovery of some cash or some gold chain would be inconclusive. In this case, even that has not happened because the only recovery is of a knife and that again has not been identified by anybody. as being the used in the commission of the offence. Consequently, even though the acquittal from the Court would result in a virtual failure of justice, we can only lay the blame at the hands of the prosecuting agency, namely the Police.

(3.) THE learned Addl. S. P. P. is right when he points out that when instances of this type take place, a wrong impression is created in the public mind that the Courts are acquitting guilty persons and contributing to the break down of the law and order situation. What is not realised in the fact that the acquittal is because of the complete failure of the prosecution which is attributable to two factors, the first is that the investigation itself is extremely casual and in the majority of cases totally negligent and secondly, because of the fact that as far as the follow up is concerned, there is an astounding level of negligence on the part of the Investigating Agency as far as the production of the evidence and of the witnesses. It is a matter of plain commonsense that if the evidence is kept back and if the material witnesses are not produced that the accused will have to be acquitted and therefore, we have little doubt about the fact that it is not only a case of negligence in instances of this type but that we cannot rule out the aspect of collusion. The time has therefore come for this Court to make a serious attempt to put a stop to these malpractices in the public interest and in order to maintain the rule of law.