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