9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Conviction under Section 395 of the Penal Code, Identification of the respondents, Recovery of stolen property, Escape in the Ambassador car Analysis: 1. The respondents were initially convicted under Section 395 of the Penal Code but were later acquitted by the High Court of Rajasthan. The State of Rajasthan filed an appeal against this judgment. 2. The incident involved the looting of a bank branch by armed individuals. The police were able to intercept the suspects in an Ambassador car after a chase, leading to their arrest. The stolen money and incriminating items were allegedly recovered from the suspects. 3. The High Court rejected the evidence of identification by bank employees and others, citing inconsistencies in their statements. It also dismissed the recovery of stolen property as unreliable and questioned the escape in the Ambassador car due to missing details in the First Information Report (FIR). 4. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's reasoning, finding the evidence against the respondents compelling. The Court highlighted the circumstances of the arrest, recovery of stolen money, and the presence of incriminating items in the car as crucial factors in establishing guilt. 5. The Court emphasized that the respondents were caught red-handed near the crime scene, attempting to flee. The recovery of the black box containing stolen money from the car, along with other bank-related documents, further supported the prosecution's case. 6. Despite the High Court's doubts regarding the FIR details, the Supreme Court considered the overall evidence strong enough to uphold the conviction. The Court criticized the High Court's approach as overly skeptical and reinstated the original conviction against the respondents. 7. Considering the time elapsed since the initial judgment, the Supreme Court modified the sentence, taking into account the respondents' personal circumstances. Each respondent was sentenced to the time already served in prison but was fined an amount to be paid within a specified period. 8. The Supreme Court's decision overturned the High Court's acquittal, reinstating the conviction and imposing a modified sentence on the respondents. The judgment highlighted the importance of strong evidence and the continuity of events in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
