2007 (9) TMI 602 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the offence under Section 397 IPC has clearly not been established? Whether the conviction needs to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed? Whether te use of weapon by offender for creating terror in mind of victim is sufficient and need not be further shown to have been actually used for cutting stabbing or shooting as the case may be?

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in lodging the complaint.
2. Credibility of the sole witness (PW1).
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under Cr.P.C.
4. Establishment of the ingredients of Sections 397, 392, and 452 IPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Lodging the Complaint:
The appellant contended that the delay in lodging the complaint (from 8.8.1984 to 31.8.1984) was not satisfactorily explained. The court noted that the complainant claimed the police did not register the FIR and made representations to various authorities, including the Prime Minister, but no material evidence was provided to substantiate these claims. The court emphasized the importance of promptly lodging complaints to avoid embellishments or fabrications, referencing past judgments such as Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ram Jag v. The State of U.P. The court concluded that the delay was not satisfactorily explained, which affected the credibility of the prosecution's case.

2. Credibility of the Sole Witness (PW1):
The conviction was primarily based on the testimony of PW1, the complainant. The court scrutinized the discrepancies in PW1's statements, noting inconsistencies regarding the weapons carried by the accused. Initially, PW1 stated that Ram Saran had a lathi and one of the Sikhs had a revolver, but later mentioned that the appellant and Ram Saran had knives. The court found these inconsistencies significant, especially since no injury was inflicted on the complainant. The court highlighted that the sole reliance on an inconsistent witness without corroborative evidence undermines the prosecution's case.

3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Cr.P.C.:
The court examined whether the procedural mandates under the Cr.P.C. were followed, particularly the provisions of Sections 154(3), 156, and 304. It was noted that the complainant did not follow the prescribed procedure when the police failed to register the FIR. The court also emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 210 Cr.P.C., which requires the Magistrate to call for a police report if a complaint is pending investigation. The non-compliance with these provisions was deemed prejudicial to the appellant. Additionally, the court stressed the importance of appointing counsel for unrepresented accused under Section 304 Cr.P.C., noting that this mandate was violated in the present case.

4. Establishment of the Ingredients of Sections 397, 392, and 452 IPC:
The court analyzed whether the essential ingredients of the charged offences were established. For Section 397 IPC, the court reiterated that the term "offender" refers to the individual who actually uses a deadly weapon during the commission of robbery or dacoity. It was concluded that since no injury was inflicted and the use of the weapon was not adequately demonstrated, the offence under Section 397 IPC was not established. Regarding Sections 392 and 452 IPC, the court found the complainant's version highly inconsistent and lacking corroborative evidence. Consequently, the court determined that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary ingredients for these offences.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the conviction, allowing the appeal. It underscored the need for courts to ensure compliance with procedural mandates, particularly when accused persons are unrepresented, to uphold the principles of justice. The judgment emphasized the importance of credible evidence and procedural adherence in criminal trials.

← Previous Next →