Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1942 (RAJ)

Mehboob v. State of Rajasthan

2019-07-11

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, SABINA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Appellants had faced trial in FIR No. 10/12 dated 07.02.2012, registered at Police Station Basai Dang, District Dholpur for the offence under Section 392 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C'). 2. Complainant-Ram Sahai in his complaint (Ex. P-11) has stated that on 07.02.2012 his driver Ramniwas along with Khalasi-Satish had come from Agra in his truck No. MP-06HC-2148. 3. Thereafter, they left for Karauli for loading the truck. At about 2:00 a.m., when they had started from Dholpur and had reached about 2 km from the check post then white colour Santro Car bearing No. HR-26 stopped their truck. Four persons entered the truck and brought out the Khalasi as well as driver of the truck by pointing country-made pistol at them. One of the said persons drove away the truck, whereas, other three persons took the driver and khalasi to the nearby hills and tied their hands and feet and threatened them. After some time with great difficulty, driver and Khalasi of the truck freed their hands and feet and informed him that truck had been taken away by some miscreants and they had also taken away Rs. 36,000/- which were lying in the truck. The said persons had also taken away their mobile phones. On the basis of the statement of the complainant formal FIR was registered. 4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellants. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined twelve witnesses. Appellants when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after close of prosecution evidence prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. 6. Appellants did not examine any witness in their defence. 7. Trial Court vide impugned judgment/order dated 01.08.2013 convicted and sentenced the appellant-Mehboob @ Ayub @ Ashik @ Kaliya under Section 395 I.P.C. and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and accused appellant Adil @ Anadil was also convicted and sentenced under Section 395, 467 and 471 I.P.C. and also Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Hence, the present appeal by the appellants. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. Driver and Khalasi of the truck had failed to identify the appellants in an identification parade. Hence, the present appeal by the appellants. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. Driver and Khalasi of the truck had failed to identify the appellants in an identification parade. Ramveer @ Ram Niwas, driver of the truck had appeared in the witness-box as PW-5 and Satish, khalasi of the truck, had appeared in the witness-box during trial as PW-6. Both the said witnesses had failed to identify the appellants during trial also. 9. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal. 10. In the present case, the star witnesses of the prosecution are PW-5 Ramveer @ Ram Niwas and PW-6 Satish. 11. PW-5 Ramveer @ Ram Niwas has deposed that on the day of incident he was driving the truck-in-question. At about 2.30 a.m. when they were present in the area of Khanpura, a white colour Santro car came and stopped their truck. He was made to get down from the truck on a pistol-point. His hands and feet were tied and they took away Rs. 36,000/- which were lying in the truck and his mobile phone. One of the person drove away the truck and he informed the owner of the truck with regard to the incident. He had not identified the accused in jail. He further stated that the accused persons who had looted them were not present the Court. To the similar effect is the statement of PW-6-Satish. 12. Thus, the material witnesses had failed to identify the appellants during trial or during investigation. 13. Complainant while appearing in the witness-box has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. In his cross-examination he stated that the police had recovered his truck. His signatures were taken by the police on some blank papers. He did not know from where the truck had been recovered by the police. Accused were already present in the police station when he had gone there but driver had stated to the police that the said persons had not looted them. 14. PW-12-Kaptain Singh has deposed that on 12.12.2012, truck-in-question was recovered from the accused and memo in this regard Ex. PI was prepared which was duly attested by the complainant. However, complainant had stated in his cross-examination that he did not know from where the truck-in-question was recovered and his signatures were taken by the police on blank papers. 14. PW-12-Kaptain Singh has deposed that on 12.12.2012, truck-in-question was recovered from the accused and memo in this regard Ex. PI was prepared which was duly attested by the complainant. However, complainant had stated in his cross-examination that he did not know from where the truck-in-question was recovered and his signatures were taken by the police on blank papers. He also stated that the driver was telling the police that the appellants were not those persons who had looted them. Investigating Officer has also submitted in his cross-examination that forged documents allegedly recovered from the accused were not got duly verified. 15. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be said that the prosecution had failed to prove its case and appellants were liable to be acquitted of the charges framed against them. There was no evidence to connect the appellants with the alleged crime. The material witnesses have failed to identify them during investigation as well as during trial. 16. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment/order dated 01.08.2013 passed by the trial Court are set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. 17. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., appellants namely Mehboob alias Ayub alias Ashik alias Kaliya son of Shri Dulhe Khan and Adil alias Anadil son of Shri Ravil Mansuri are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each, and a surety in the like amount, before the Registrar(Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.