Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of Surendra P. Tavade and Ranjit More, JJ., while dismissing the present appeal upheld the trial court’s decision for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 392 read with Section 34 of Penal Code, 1860.

Reason for appeal to be preferred

Appellant – Original accused challenged the Judgment and conviction order passed by Additional Sessions Judge of wherein the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 392 read with 397 IPC.

Facts

First informant was deceased’s daughter and worked at a sugarcane juice stall. Balli used to clean the sugarcane at informant’s place and take the same to informant’ Juice Stall. On one day, Balli when did not reach the stall, informant called the deceased to know whether the servant Balli had proceeded to the shop, to which her mother replied that his work was not over yet, and he may stay for some time and then attend the shop.

When the informant reached her house in the night, she found her mother lying in the pool of blood, with knife pierced in her chest and a deep injury on the neck.

Later, FIR was registered and during investigation through the call records, it was found that appellant was moving in the vicinity at the time of the incident. Police on searching for the appellant found him at his native place and was further arrested.

 Trial Court held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 449, 397 and 302 of IPC.

Contentions

Counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecution did not prove the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the appellant.

Adding to the above, it was also submitted that there could be a possibility of involvement of third person committing offence and appellant was wrongly convicted for the offences.

APP submitted that discovery of ornaments, blood-stained cloths from the possession of the appellant unequivocally proved involvement of the appellant in the crime.

Further appellant’s counsel submitted that even it was proved that the appellant was found in possession of stolen articles, he could not be held guilty for the charge under Section 302 IPC and at the most, he will be held guilty under Section 392 IPC.

Decision

High Court noted that the appellant had contacted PW-17 and shown him the gold articles, further the said articles were seized from the appellant. After the incident, appellant went to his native place and showed gold ornaments to PW-17.

Appellant was found in possession of the gold articles immediately after the incident. He also produced clothes that were stained with blood. Another circumstance to be noted against the appellant was that he was seen in the vicinity of the scene of offence before the incident and during the time of the incident.

This, in view of the above, trial court’s decision is upheld and the present appeal is to be dismissed. [Girvarsingh Bhagwatsingh Devda v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 315decided on 25-02-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J. allowed an appeal filed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC.

As per the prosecution story, on the day of the incident, the complainant went to his oil mill, collected Rs 2,03,000, and proceeded towards the Post Office on his scooter. The appellants were alleged for following the complainant on a motorcycle, obstructing him on his way, threatening him with a gun, and taking away the money from the dickey of his scooter. Pursuant the complaint made by the complainant, an FIR was registered which ultimately resulted in conviction of the appellants by the trial court as mentioned above. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred the instant appeal.

The High Court perused the entire evidence available on record as well as testimony of all the prosecution witness. It was found that the alleged money collected by the complainant was not proved. In such circumstances, there could not be any robbery. Although it was stated that Rs 13000 lat scattered at the place of occurrence, not even a single note was recovered. Mere presence of motorcycle could not aby robbery. It wasn’t clear as to how the police came to the spot. Person carrying the revolver was not identified, genuineness of documents to confirm the ownership of the scooter was not verified, the constable who read the cash-book to the Investigation Officer was not made a prosecution witness. The Court was of the view that in the absence of any direct evidence that the appellants were involved in commission of the offence, benefit of doubt may be extended to them. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. The appellants were acquitted of all the charges, the order of the trial court was reversed. [Abdul Rashid v. State of W.B.,2018 SCC OnLine Cal 6326, dated 13-09-2018]