2021 Y L R 969
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----S. 395---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 40---Dacoity---Appreciation of evidence---Disclosure of accused---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused and co-accused, six in number, entered into the house of complainant and looted five crore rupees cash, jewellery amounting to fifty/sixty lakhs---Record showed that the custody of accused was taken who was already in custody of another case---During investigation, the accused made disclosure and on his pointation, the Investigating Officer got recovered an amount of Rs. 28,50,000/-, one 9-MM pistol with live cartridges, one gold ring---Vehicle and commando uniform was also taken into possession from the house of the accused---Accused had given details of dacoity, his companions, purchase of body building articles, purchase of vehicle and same were recovered on his pointation---Record showed that the complainant, prima facie, had no motive to falsely involve the accused---Evidence tendered by prosecution qualified the term confidence inspiring to the extent of accused---Hence in absence of any possibility of false involvement such evidence was rightly believed by the Trial Court---Circumstances established that the conviction so recorded by the Trial Court was proper and well reasoned---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.
(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Art. 22---Identification parade---Scope---Identification parade was to establish identification of culprit and to pin point the role of accused in commission of offence.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----S. 395---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22--- Dacoity---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt--- Identification parade--- Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused and co-accused, six in number, entered into the house of complainant and looted five crore rupees cash, jewellery amounting to fifty/sixty lakhs---Record transpired that the custody of accused was taken by the police on 23.06.2017, then the identification parade was conducted---Delay of identification per se was not itself sufficient to discard the testimony---Identification parade was not substantive piece of evidence---Identification parade could only corroborate the statement of the witness---Circumstances established that the conviction so recorded by the trial court was proper and well reasoned---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.
(d) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Art. 40---Disclosure of accused before police---Admissibility---If recovery was affected on the disclosure and pointation of accused, such information would be admissible in evidence.
(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----S. 395---Dacoity---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of about more than twenty days in lodging the FIR---Effect---Prosecution case was that the accused and co-accused, six in number entered into the house of complainant and looted five crore rupees cash, jewellery amounting to fifty/sixty lakhs---Record showed that the complainant submitted application for the registration of FIR on 11.04.2017---Station House Officer concerned instead of registering FIR started inquiry under S. 157(2), Cr.P.C. and finally on 01.05.2017 recommended for FIR---Complainant by submitting application, fulfilled the responsibility on his part---Mere delay in lodging FIR was not sufficient to believe or disbelieve the contents of FIR---Guilt or innocence would require evidence---Concept of FIR was to set criminal law into motion---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.
(f) Criminal trial---
----Admission of accused against other accused---Scope---Admission of accused could not be based for conviction of other accused.
(g) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 417---Appeal against acquittal---Presumption--- Acquittal carried double presumption of innocence infavour of accused and warranted no interference unless the same was arbitrary, capricious, fanciful or against the record.
0 Comments