HRIDYANAND SHUKLA Vs YADUPATI CHAUHAN .
Bench: H.L. DATTU,CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000310-000310 / 2008
Diary number: 26809 / 2005
Advocates: K. S. RANA Vs
V. J. FRANCIS
Page 1
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 310 OF 2008
HRIDYANAND SHUKLA & ANR. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
YADUPATI CHAUHAN & ORS. RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal
Appeal Nos.1122 of 2004, 873 of 2004, 1507 of 2004, 1502 of 2004
and 1036 of 2004 and Criminal Reference No.7 of 2004, dated
01.09.2005.
2. The said appeals were preferred by the
5 accused persons viz. Mangaroo (A-1),
Yadupati Chauhan (A-2), Bhanwar Pal (A-3),
Deepak alias Chanda (A-4 and Arti Devi (A-5), respectively
against the judgment of conviction dated 06.07.2004 and the
order imposing sentence dated 07.07.2004 passed by the Ld.
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Deoria in
Sessions Trial No.210 of 2003. By the impugned judgment and
Page 2
2
order, the high Court has allowed Criminal Appeal Nos.1122 of
2004 and 873 of 2004, acquitting A-1 and A-2 of the charges
under Sections 396 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the
I.P.C.” for short). As a consequence of A-1's acquittal, the
Criminal Reference No.7 of 2004 made by the Ld.Sessions Judge,
under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (“the Code” for short), for confirmation of
death sentence of A-1 is rejected by the High Court. The
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1502 and 1507 of 2004
filed by A-3 and A-4, respectively have been partly allowed by
the High Court setting aside their conviction and sentences
under Sections 396 and 397 of the I.P.C., but maintaining their
conviction under Section 412 of the I.P.C. The High Court has
dismissed Criminal Appeal 1036 of 2004 filed by A-5 and
confirmed her conviction and sentence under Section 412 of the
I.P.C.
3. This appeal is filed by the complainant, whereby he
questions the judgment and order of the High Court on the ground
that the High Court, without properly re-appreciating the
evidence on record, ought not to have acquitted A-1 and A-2 of
the offences under Sections 396 and 397 of the I.P.C. Assailing
the impugned judgment, Ld. Amicus would submit
that the High Court fell into error for convicting A-3, A-4 and
A-5 under Section 412 of the I.P.C. instead of prosecuting them
under Section 411 of the I.P.C. in respect of recovery of stolen
Page 3
3
articles.
4. With the assistance of the Learned Counsel appearing for the
parties to the lis, we have carefully perused the judgment and
order passed by the High Court and also analysed the evidence
that was recorded by the Trial Court. The High Court has re-
appreciated the evidence on record and observed that the two
accused persons, A-1 and A-2, have neither been named in the FIR
nor is their involvement disclosed at the earliest opportunity
by any of the witnesses. Additionally, no charge
has been laid by the prosecution under
Sections 396 and 397 of the I.P.C. against
them. The only identification of the said accused is during the
course of the trial by the witnesses who testimony stands
contradicted by the evidence of Investigating Officer. In the
light of the aforesaid and there being no Test Identification
Parade at the investigation stage, the High Court has concluded
that the evidence against the said accused persons is not
sufficient for conviction under Sections 396 and 397 of the
I.P.C.
5. We have analysed the impugned judgment on the touchstone of
the evidence on record and weighed the submissions made by the
Learned Counsel for the parties. In our considered opinion, the
High Court has not committed any error whatsoever, by
acquitting A-1 and A-2 of charges under
Page 4
4
Sections 396 and 397 of the I.P.C. and by
maintaining the conviction and sentence of A-3, A-4 and A-5
under Section 412 of the I.P.C., which would call for our
interference. Accordingly, while sustaining the judgment and
order passed by the High Court, we dismiss this appeal.
6. The fee of learned Amicus is assessed at Rs.7,000/-.
Mr.Balaji learned A.C. wishes to deposit the amount in the
Supreme Court Employees Mutual Welfare Fund.
Ordered accordingly.
.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)
.......................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 29, 2012