LATIFNAGODAR HAYAT SINDHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Sec. 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in a common judgement in Sessions Case No. 66/2014 and Sessions Case No. 63/2015 on 29/7/2016, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants and other co- accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 399 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").

(2.) The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of conviction, the appellant no. 1 - original accused no. 2 of Sessions Case No. 66/2014 and appellant no. 2 - original accused of Sessions Case No. 63/2015 have filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Trial Court is erroneous, unwarranted and absolutely faulty and a number of discrepancies have been made by the learned Trial Court in misreading the evidence. That the reasons given by the learned Trial Court are based on conjectures, surmises and inferences which is not permissible in a criminal trial. That the learned Trial Court has held the time of incident at 01.15 hours on 27/5/2014 in the charge framed by the learned Trial Court but as per the deposition of the witnesses and the panch witness, the incident has occurred at around 08.00 pm on 27/4/2014 and there are material contradictions about the timing of the incident that had taken place. That the judgement and order of conviction is illegal, and based only on this set of evidence and deserves to be quashed and set aside. That the complainant has not supported the case in his cross- examination and he has admitted that he had no personal knowledge about the information that was received and no new neutral or independent panch witnesses have been examined by the learned Trial Court. That only Police Officers have been examined and there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses as well as the panchnama and there is a contradiction as to how the accused have been arrested. That the prosecution witness no. 4 has stated that the accused fell down from the bike, whereas, prosecution witness no. 5 states that they had arrested the accused when they were sitting on the bike and this is a major contradiction which has not been considered by the learned Trial Court. That the appellant no. 2 was not arrested on the day of the offence and he has been arrested after a lapse of time and no one could identify him at the time that he is alleged to have been fled away and it appears that the entire story was concocted by the complainant. That if the accused in fact, wanted to commit a dacoity or robbery, they would have chosen a place where people were passing by and they would not choose a place which is lonely and hence, the judgement and order of conviction is passed without proper reasons. That even for the sake of arguments, if it is found that the catapult and stones were recovered from the appellant no. 1, the catapult cannot be said to be a dangerous / deadly weapon and there is nothing on record to show that any weapon was recovered from the appellant no. 2. That the appellant no. 2 has been falsely implicated in the said offence and as the judgement and order of conviction is erroneous, illegal and unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgement and order must be quashed and set aside and the appellants must be acquitted of the said offence.