STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAMBABOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal against the acquittal is directed against the judgment, dated January 31, 1984 of Addl. Sessions Judge No 1, Bharatpur acquitting the accused -respondents of offence under Sections 399 and 402 IPC.

(2.) THE four accused -respondents were tried by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur in a case where according to the prosecution Shri Ram Chandra Yadav, Station House Officer, Police Station, Roopvas along with police party, on an information received from an informant, went to Kalapatta hillock at 11 00 p m. and he saw 5 -6 miscreants standing there. They were surrounded by the police force taken by the Station House Officer along with him. Seeing the police force the miscreants started running hence the Station House Officer threw torch light and fired on them. They stood up with their hands up and the others made their escape good. It is then alleged that the S.H O recovered one country made Pistol from Rambaboo with two live cartridges, one country made pistol with four cartridges from Pramod Kumar, one knife from Pappu and one lathi from Bobby. The documents were prepared and meanhile a literate constable was sent to the police station for lodging the report. After completing the investigation all the four accused -respondents were challaned in the court of Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bayana for offence under Sections 399 and 402 IPC and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. The accused were committed to Sessions and were tried by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur. At trial the prosecution examined 7 witnesses in support of its case. The accused denied the prosecution story and came with a plea that Pramod Kumar and Rambaboo used to serve in Bombay and had come on holidays. Pappu and Bobby asked them that they should also be taken to Bombay where they will serve, hence all of them were going to Bombay with certain money in their pockets and when they got down at Roopvas station for taking water they were apprehended. They were holding the railway tickets upto Kota which had also been taken. It is also also alleged that they had been kept in wrongful detention for 18 days. This case was registered after 18 days. They however, did not lead any defence evidence.

(3.) BEFORE I deal with the evidence in the case it is purposeful for me to mention that this appeal has to be decided in the light of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ediga Sanjanna and Ors v. The State of Andhra Pradesh: : 1973CriLJ563 and Babu and Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh: : 1983CriLJ334 where in their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that 'the appellate court, while considering an appeal against acquittal should be slow to interfere with that order and should not interfere even if two views of the same evidence can be taken' and it is in this light that I will be discussing the evidence in the case. In fact in this case both the parties have come with positive stories. The prosecution has come with a case that the Sub -Inspector of police on receiving an information from an informant went to a hillock named as Kalapatta where there are mines and apprehended the accused from that place, while according to the defence all the four were going to Bombay and while they got down at Roopavas station for drinking water they were detained by the SHO. Their case is that their money was snatched without making a record and when they raised the protest then false case of preparation for dacoity was made and all these arms and ammunitions were attributed to them which infact had not been recovered from them. It is pertinent to mention here that all the accused persons were of tender age at the time when they were apprehended. They have given their ages as 15 and 16 in the charge which was read over to them and the learned Judge had mentioned it to be about 18 years. PW 1 Durga Prasad is a Govt. servant who had been taken as a motbir. He states that at 10 00 in the night he was taken from the way by the Sub -Inspector of Police to the Kalapatta hillock. There the four persons were apprehended who gave out their names to be Rambaboo, Pramod Kumar, Pappu and Bobby Rambaboo and Pramod Kumar were having Kattas while Pappu was having Lathi while Bobby also had Lathi. Ammunition is also alleged to have been recovered from them. When cross examined this witness stated that he did mention to the police that two persons had run away but the police might not have taken down the same. He has further stated that he cannot say whether all the accused were arrested simultaneously or at different times because when he and Parasram reached near the accused they were already in police custody. He says that the documents were prepared in the candle light on the spot and they were also sealed there also. He however, stated that though the names were given out in his presence by the accused he cannot identify them by name in the Court. He further states that he is also unable to say as to from which accused which goods have been recovered. PW 2 Harish Chandra is head constable who had examined the Kattas One of the striking feature in his cross -examination is that he did not see whether the Kattas, i.e., the country made pistols, were serviceable or not. Parsaram PW 3 is another motbir who was taken along with the police party. He virtually states what has been stated by PW 1 in his examination -in -chief. But in his Cross -examination he stated that he could not identify any accused by name though the names were given in his presence. He states that he cannot say whether the accused attempted to run away when they were encircled. He states that he and Durga Prasad were at a distance of half a field when the recovery was made. He states that the documents were prepared in the torch light. He however, does not remember whether any search of the accused was taken or not. PW 4 is an ASI of police station, Roopvas who also accompanied the police party. He has admitted in his strtement that he cannot tell as to from which of the accused what particular weapon of offence had been recovered. He also admits that in his presence no informant gave information to the Sub -Inspector of Police. According to him the accused were arrested at 1.00 in the night and one hour was taken in preparing the documents. He ruled out the story given by the accused though put to him in cross -examination. Nihal Singh PW 5 is also an employee of the police station who too has supported the prosecution story completely in examination -in -chief. However there are some contradictions in his cross -examination. He also denied the story given by the prosecution, so is PW 6 Hari Singh. Hari Singh is the person who had also gone to the police station and lodged a report. This report according to him was taken down at 11.55. He however, stated that if he is asked to point out the accused by his name it is not possible for him to do so. He has also stated that he cannot say as to which of the weapon was recovered from which particular accused. He has denied the story given by accused. PW 7 Ramchander is the crucial witness who has given the details of the incident in which the accused then apprehended. He has been cross examined at a great length and it is true that weakness in the investigation could be brought out from his investigation. It appears that he was lesser careful in preparing the documents and was over enthusiastic in apprehending the accused -appellants. There is also a contradiction in his statement about Eastern side and Western side of the mines where the accused were apprehended and he has also faulered about the recovery of arms and ammunitions. He has also denied the story given by the accused. This is the total prosecution evidence.