Penal Code, 1860: ss. 392 and 397 – Robbery using deadly weapons – Prosecution case that appellant and co-accused armed with pistols robbed the complainant and his nephew – Conviction u/ss. 392 and 397 and sentenced accordingly, on basis of the disclosure statement and recovery made thereof – High Court upheld the conviction, however, reduced the sentence u/s. 397 – On appeal, held: Court can convict an accused exclusively on the basis of his disclosure statement and the resultant recovery of inculpatory material – However, in order to sustain the guilt of such accused, the recovery should be flawless and not be shrouded with elements of doubt – Where the prosecution fails to inspire confidence in the manner and/or contents of the recovery with regard to its nexus to the alleged offence, the court ought to give the benefit of doubt to the accused – On facts, prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant – Courts below were influenced by irrelevant considerations, such as rise in the incidents of dacoity – Courts below shifted the burden on the appellant to explain how he was in possession of the incriminating articles, without primarily scrutinizing the credibility and admissibility of the recovery as well as its linkage to the misconduct – Inference was drawn against the appellant, in spite of the prosecution’s failure to dispense with its burden of proof to depict culpability of the appellant – Evidence on record did not establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt – Thus, the orders passed by the courts below set aside. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The Court can convict an accused exclusively on the basis of his disclosure statement and the resultant recovery of inculpatory material. However, in order to sustain the guilt of such accused, the recovery should be unimpeachable and not be shrouded with elements of doubt. [Para 16][1146-B-C]
1.2 Where the prosecution fails to inspire confidence in the manner and/or contents of the recovery with regard to its nexus to the alleged offence, the court ought to stretch the benefit of doubt to the accused. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that “it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer”. The doctrine of extending benefit of doubt to an accused, notwithstanding the proof of a strong suspicion, holds its fort on the premise that “the acquittal of a guilty person constitutes a miscarriage of justice just as much as the conviction of the innocent”. [Para 17][1146-E-G]
2. It may not be wise or prudent to convict a person only because there is rampant increase in heinous crimes and victims are oftenly reluctant to speak truth due to fear or other extraneous reasons. The burden to prove the guilt beyond doubt does not shift on the suspect save where the law casts duty on the accused to prove his/her innocence. It is the bounden duty of the prosecution in cases where material witnesses are likely to be slippery, either to get their statements recorded at the earliest under Section 164 Cr.P.C. or collect such other cogent evidence that its case does not entirely depend upon oral testimonies. [Para 18][1147-A-B]
3. The prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant and courts below have been unwittingly swayed by irrelevant considerations, such as rise in the incidents of dacoity. The trial court and High Court have hastened to shift the burden on the appellant to elucidate how he bechanced to be in possession of the incriminating articles, without primarily scrutinizing the credibility and admissibility of the recovery as well as its linkage to the misconduct. The High Court and trial court failed to take into consideration that the testimony of ASI (PW-14) exhibited no substantial effort made by the police for conducting the search of the residence of the appellant in the presence of local witnesses. The only independent witness to the recovery was PW-8 who was admittedly a companion of the complainant. The complainant (PW-4) as well as PW-8, have unambiguously refuted that neither the passbook, nor the ‘red cloth’ was recovered from the possession of the appellant, as claimed in his disclosure statement. While, PW-4 negated his signatures on the recovery memo, on the other hand, PW-8 also neither enumerated the recovery memo in the catalogue of exhibited documents, nor did that he affirm to having his endorsement. The recovered articles are common place object like money and the ‘red cloth’ with ‘Kamla’ embossed on it, as has been acceded by PW-14, can also be easily available in market. The recovery took place nearly a month after the commission of the alleged offence. It is incredulous that the appellant during the entire time period kept both red cloth and the passbook along with the money he robbed off the complainant. Furthermore, there is no other evidence on record which even remotely points towards the iniquity of the appellant. [Para 19][1147-C-H; 1148A-C]
4. The trial court and the High Court have erroneously drawn inference against the appellant, in spite of the prosecution having lamentably failed to adequately dispense with its burden of proof to depict culpability of the appellant. As far as the view of the trial court and the High Court qua the alleged threat is concerned, it is hard-pressed to give credence to such allegations in the absence of any compelling evidence to substantiate the same. Although, the prosecution has attempted to place reliance on the affidavit presented by the complainant during the T.I.P. offered by the co-accused, the said affidavit does not name the appellant. [Para 20][1148-C-E]
5. The evidence on record does not establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the courts below have arrived at recording the guilt of the appellant in absence of any cogent rationale, justifying his conviction. Thus, the judgments and orders passed by the trial court and High Court are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all charges. [Para 21, 22][1148E-F] Vijay Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2014) 14 SCC 609; Tulsiram Kanu v. The State; AIR 1954 SC 1; Pancho v. State of Haryana (2011) 10 SCC 165 : [2011]
12 SCR 1173; State of Rajasthan v. Talevar & Anr. (2011) 11 SCC 666 : [2011] 6 SCR 1050; Bharama Parasram Kudhachkar v. State of Karnataka (2014)
14 SCC 431 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.