Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1034 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Shakil

2014-04-28

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal leave to appeal has been filed by the State while challenging the order dated 30.8.2013 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2 Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 9/2013 whereby the Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 413 l.P.C. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that ample evidence is available on record to prove that the respondents have committed the offence punishable under Sections 380 and 413 l.P.C., however, the learned Trial Court has grossly erred in acquitting the accused-respondent for the aforesaid offences. 3. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3 has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the respondents as no recovery has been effected from the accused Shakil and Salim and there is no evidence available on record to suggest that the accused Manish has purchased the stolen articles from other accused persons. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. 5. In the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has specifically observed that no recovery has been effected from Shakil and Salim and the prosecution has not procured any independent witness in respect of recover of the stolen articles from the accused Manish. The Trial Court has also observed that the prosecution witnesses Mahaveer Prasad Nayak has admitted in his cross-examination that before identification of stolen articles, no notice has been issued to the complainant and the identification proceeding does not bear the signatures of the witnesses. After observing this, the Trial Court has further observed that it cannot be presumed that any person after purchasing the stolen article will keep the same in the showcase of his shop for a period of one year and looking to these circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the charges against the respondents beyond doubt. 6. After observing this, the Trial Court has further observed that it cannot be presumed that any person after purchasing the stolen article will keep the same in the showcase of his shop for a period of one year and looking to these circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the charges against the respondents beyond doubt. 6. This Court is of the opinion that when there is no recovery from the accused Shakil and Salim and there is no evidence available to this effect to prove that the accused respondent No. 3 Manish has purchased any stolen article from the respondents No. 1 and 2 and when the recovery from Manish and the proceedings of recovery are doubt the learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality in accused-respondents.Hence, no case for interference is made out. The criminal leave to appeal is rejected.Leave to appeal dismissed. *******