Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 333 (UTT)

State of U. P. v. Raj Kumar

2004-11-25

IRSHAD HUSSAIN

body2004
JUDGMENT Irshad Hussain, J. : This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.4.1982 passed by Sri V. K. Agarwal, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Drehradun in S. 1. No. 98 of 1980 acquitting the accused Sobat Singh, Raj Kumar, Rakesh, Rajesh and Mani Ram of the charges levelled against them. All the accused were prosecuted for the offence punishable under sections 399/402 of the I.P.C. , whereas the accused Sobat Singh, Raj Kumar and Rajesh were also tried for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 2. The occurrence had taken place at 2.15 A.M. in the night intervening 9/ 10.7.1980 in Khandhar Madan-Ka-Adda situate at river Bindal within the circle of P. S. Kotwali Dehradun. According to the prosecution these accused have assembled there for the purpose of making preparation for committing dacoity in the house of one Raj Kumar. On an infoI" mation raid was made by the police party and on interception three were arrested at the spot whereas two accused Rakesh Kumar and Mani Ram were successful in making their escape possible from the spot. However, on arrest they were put to test identification parade and were thereafter also charge-sheeted longwith their three companions. 3. The record reveals that the case was fixed for quite sometime for recording the prosecution evidence but evidence of the prosecution could not be produced on the date fixed i.e. 12.3.1982. An opportunity was given to the prosecution on payment of cost to produce the witnesses but the compliance of the order was hot made. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter on 12.4.1982 formed an opinion that since the prosecution evidence was not forthcoming, it was a case of no evidence and since the accused were languishing in jail they deserved to be acquitted of the charges levelles against them. The learned Sessions Judge accordingly acquitted all the five accused of the charges levelled against them and they were directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other case. 4. Heard the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate and the learned counsel for the respondents-accused and have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. 4. Heard the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate and the learned counsel for the respondents-accused and have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate led me through the record of the case and submitted that sufficient opportunity to produce the evidence of the prosecution was not afforded and that learned Additional Sessions Judge was not legally justified in forming an opinion that it was a case of no evidence and thereafter acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against them. Having gone through the record it cannot safely be accepted that the opportunity was not given to the prosecution to produce its witnesses. The accused were in custody and were languishing in jail and the prosecution was saddled with the cost on seeking adjournment, but the compliance of the order was not made. Even otherwise having gone through the material on record, the circumstances and probabilities of the case and particularly the nature of the allegations against the accused-respondents, no useful purpose will be served if after a lapse of more than twenty years case is reopened after setting aside the impugned judgment. We also cannot -lose sight of the fact that the occurrence had taken place more than twenty two years ago and the circumstances of the case do not warrant that there should be retrial after setting aside the judgment of acquittal. Considering these aspects there appears to be no force in this appeal and the interest of justice demand that the judgment of acquittal be maintained as such. 7. For the above reasons the appeal fails and is to be dismissed. 8. Appeal is dismissed.