Conviction order Set Aside by Punjab Haryana High Court

In this post we will discuss about a case wherein the conviction was set aside by The Punjab and Haryana High Court on the ground that there is mere suspicion and no direct or circumstantial evidence in the case to indicate the guilt of the accused.

Conviction set aside by High Court

Also Read- suspension of conviction doctypes: punjab – Indian Kanoon

In this post we will discuss that the conviction is set aside by the Panjab and Haryana High court on the ground that there is mere suspicion and no direct or circumstantial evidence in the present case to indicate the guilt of the accused, therefore, the cogent and plausible view is to give benefit of doubt to the accused. It is the cardinal principle of criminal Jurisprudence that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved to be guilty by the prosecution and the accused is entitle to the benefit of every reasonable doubt.

This view is based on the latest judgment of Allahabad High court in the case of Rambabu Nishad And Another vs State Of U.P. on 5 March, 2021.

Also Read- SC sets aside high court order, says liberty of citizen

Brief facts of the case:

On 25.05.2005 at 6.00 O’clock of evening he had gone to river Ganga to catch fish; his wife Smt. Sughara Devi had gone to the house of her relatives at District Mirzapur to attend a marriage invitation; his minor daughter Km. Reeta Devi, aged 15 years old and two children were at the house.
At 10.00 O’clock in the night he came back to his house after catching fish. On the next day i.e. 26.05.2005 at 3.00 O’clock he woke up, opened the door of his house to have tobacco, in the light of torch he saw accused Pandit Lal inside the room, he caught hold the accused Pandit Lal and asked him the cause of his presence at his house, who told him that his daughter has called him, he fled away from there.
The informant asked his daughter about accused Pandit Lal, she told him that accused Pandit Lal and one Nebu, both were bent upon to outrage her modesty and also persuaded her to get marry.
The matter was pacified by the persons of locality On the very day i.e. 26.05.2005 at 6.00 O’clock of morning when he came back to his house from river Ganga, he found his daughter Km. Reeta Devi missing; his children told him that Rambabu father of accused Pandit had taken her with him. He went to the house of Rambabu, who hurled filthy abuse to him and told nothing in regard to his daughter. He made hectic search of his daughter but could not get her. Mewa Lal and Badakoo of the village had told him that they had seen Pandit Lal and Nebu accompanying Km. Reeta Devi going towards Gopiganj.
On 2.6.2005 a panchayat was called, accused-Rambabu (father of accused Pandit Lal) and one Nebu assured in the panchayat that his daughter would be sent back to his house within two or three days. The time was prolonged either one pretext or the other.
On 3.6.2005 he moved the complaint to the police station but no action was taken. Thereafter complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police, Bhadohi by registered post, no action was taken.
On 13.07.2005 the application under Section 156(3)Cr.P.C. was moved before the Magistrate concerned.
The Investigating Officer after concluding the investigation on 16.9.2005 submitted the final report, against the same protest petition was filed on behalf of complainant and the Magistrate passed the order of further investigation.
The Investigating Officer after having conducted further investigation filed chargesheet on 2.11.2011 against accused Rambabu Nishad and Pandit Lal, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506IPC before Magistrate concerned, who took cognizance on the chargesheet and committed the case to the court of sessions for trial.

ALSO READ- HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH ORDER SET ASIDE IN LANDLORD TENANT DISPUTES

In the Trial Court :

The trial court framed the charge against accused Rambabu Nishad and Pandit Lal, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 IPC .

Learned trial court after hearing the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, vide judgment and order dated 29.08.2018 convicted the appellants Rambabu and Pandit Lal for the offences under Sections 363, 366 of IPC and acquitted them for the offences under Sections 504 506 IPC and awarded sentence to the appellants as above.

In the Allahabad High Court :

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence the instant criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants Rambabu and Pandit Lal on the ground that the conviction and sentence passed by the court below is against the law and against the weight of evidence on record.

The appeal is filed by the appellants accused under section 374(2) of CrPC

“ Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years ² has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial], may appeal to the High Court.”

Grounds of appeal:-

They alleged that the whole case of prosecution is basesd on hearsay evidence which are not admissible.
Trial court did not consider the delay in lodging the FIR.
As per the prosecution case the star witness Arvind the younger brother of the victim Km. Reeta Devi, who was very much present at the time of occurrence not examined during trial, who died on 29.08.2015 and during investigation the Investigating Officer did not interrogate him, even his name was not figured in the list of witnesses in charge-sheet dated 02.11.2011.
The only testimony of Ram Vilas is that on the date of occurrence accused Pandit Lal was found inside the room of his house, who also fled away from there on being intercepted by Ram Vilas but his daughter was very much at the house. His daughter was missing only thereafter when Ram Vilas had gone to catch fish in river Ganga and the only eye witness Arvind the son of the informant was present there, who was never interrogated by the Investigating Officer during Investigation and was also was not examined by the prosecution during trial, who was very much alive till the commencement of evidence.

ALSO READ- PO ORDERS SET ASIDE BY THE HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

Findings of the High Court:-

The date and time of occurrence, Ram Vilas (informant) and the father of the victim Km. Reeta Devi and Sughara Devi (mother of the victim) both were not present at the house. Ram Vilas had gone to river Ganga to catch fish and his wife had gone to her parental house to attend the marriage invitation.
When came to his house, his 8 years old son Arvind told him that his daughter Km. Reeta Devi was taken away by Rambabu and Nebu Lal, as such, the best eye witness of the occurrence. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer had not interrogated Arvind during investigation. The charge-sheet was filed by Investigating Officer on 02.11.2011. Till submission of the charge-sheet Arvind was alive, but from the evidence on record it is also established that Arvind died on 29.08.2015, as is evident from F.R. No. 44 of 2015 was filed in Case Crime No. 421 of 2015 (State Vs. Rambabu and others), under Section 302IPC, P.S. Gopiganj, District Bhadohi, in which the Investigating Officer has submitted the F.R. stating that Arvind son of informant had committed suicide on some altercation with his father after having jumped before the running train on 29.08.2015.
As such Arvind was alive till 29.08.2015. During this period no statement of Arvind was recorded by the Investigating Officer. Moreover, the evidence in S.T. No. 27 of 2013 (State Vs. Rambabu Nishad) was commenced on 30.05.2015 whereas P.W.1 Ram Vilas was examined on the same day i.e. 30.05.2015.
The statement of Ram Vilas is based on hearsay and hence the same is not admissible in evidence.
Mewa Lal and Badakoo (As per prosecution case on the date of occurrence the minor daughter of informant Km. Reeta Devi was also last seen along with Pandit Lal and Nebu Lal by Mewa Lal and Badakoo of the village, who had told to the informant that all were going towards Gopiganj) both in their statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. had not supported the prosecution story and have stated that they have not seen Km. Reeta Devi going along with accused Pandit Lal and Nebu Lal.
As per prosecution case the P.W.1 (informant) Ram Vilas has stated that on the very day a Panchayat was called in which Rambabu and father of Nebu Lal had assured him that his daughter would be at his house within two or three days. in this behalf none of the member of panchayat and village person assured this testimony.

Also Read- NARESH v. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

Observations made by the High Court:

In the present case, only the doubt has been raised on behalf of Ram Vilas against the accused persons in regard to commission of offence and it is also the settled law that suspicion however strong may be the same cannot take the place of proof and on the basis of suspicion no one can be convicted.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Vs. Mahender Singh Dahiyya, AIR 2011 SC 1017, held that in criminal trial suspicion no matter how strong cannot be permitted to take the place of proof.

No direct or circumstantial evidence to indicate the guilt of the accused, therefore, the cogent and plausible view is to give benefit of doubt to the accused.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Munni Ram and others, AIR 2011 SC (Supplement) 573 and in Vithal Eknath Edlinge Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2067, held that in criminal trial when the two views are possible on the evidence adduced on record, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards innocence . The view favourable to the accused should be adopted.

ALSO READ- CONVICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI

Held:

The criminal appeal succeeds and is allowed.

The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court vide judgment and order dated 29.08.2018 is hereby set aside. The appellants are hereby acquitted from the charges levelled against them.

Also Read- Gopal Krishan Petitioner v. Ashok Kumar | Punjab & Haryana .

This post is written by Surbhi Yadav

Rest for case specific advice, please contact best/top/expert Criminal Lawyer Advocate of Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali.