1989 (3) TMI 404 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Criminal conspiracy
2. Extortion
3. Wrongful confinement and restraint
4. Fabrication of false evidence
5. Disappearance of evidence
6. Forgery and false entries
7. Cheating
8. Test identification parade
9. Acquittal by the High Court
10. Supreme Court's power under Article 136

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Criminal Conspiracy:
The accused were charged with entering into a criminal conspiracy on or about 1.3.67 in Mainpuri city to hush up the theft or criminal breach of trust involving Rs. 9600/- in Government cash. The High Court found no substantial evidence to support the prosecution's claim that all the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit the alleged offences. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, concluding that there was no evidence, either oral, documentary, or circumstantial, to prove a criminal conspiracy.

2. Extortion:
The accused were alleged to have extorted money from Bhargava by putting him in fear of injury. The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to decisively prove that Bhargava was subjected to fear of injury to extort money. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that if Bhargava voluntarily handed over the fixed deposit certificates to avoid criminal proceedings, the prosecution's case of extortion was not established.

3. Wrongful Confinement and Restraint:
The prosecution claimed that Bhargava was wrongfully confined and restrained by the accused. The High Court found no credible evidence to support this claim, particularly noting the absence of any documentary evidence from the Agra Police Club where Bhargava was allegedly confined. The Supreme Court concurred, emphasizing the lack of evidence to prove Bhargava's illegal confinement or restraint.

4. Fabrication of False Evidence:
The accused were charged with fabricating false evidence, including false entries in the logbook and other documents. The High Court dismissed these charges due to insufficient evidence. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting that even if some documents were falsely prepared, it did not conclusively implicate the accused in the alleged offences.

5. Disappearance of Evidence:
The prosecution alleged that the accused caused evidence of the commission of the offence to disappear. The High Court found no substantial proof to support this allegation. The Supreme Court agreed, highlighting the lack of credible evidence to prove that the accused intentionally caused the disappearance of evidence.

6. Forgery and False Entries:
The accused were charged with forgery and making false entries in official documents. The High Court found the evidence insufficient to prove these charges. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the evidence presented did not conclusively establish the accused's involvement in forgery or false entries.

7. Cheating:
The accused were alleged to have cheated the Government by fraudulently claiming TA bills. The High Court found no conclusive evidence to prove that the TA claims were fraudulent. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting that the evidence did not sufficiently establish that the TA claims were false or fraudulent.

8. Test Identification Parade:
The High Court criticized the prosecution for not conducting a test identification parade for the accused to be identified by key witnesses. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the failure to conduct a test identification parade weakened the prosecution's case, especially since the accused had requested it.

9. Acquittal by the High Court:
The High Court acquitted the accused, concluding that the prosecution failed to decisively prove the charges and that the evidence was inconsistent with the presumption of innocence. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, finding no reason to interfere with the High Court's decision, which was neither erroneous, perverse, nor improper.

10. Supreme Court's Power under Article 136:
The Supreme Court reiterated its limited scope of interference under Article 136, emphasizing that it does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact except in exceptional circumstances. The Court found no such exceptional circumstances in this case and thus upheld the High Court's acquittal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court, after a thorough examination of the evidence and the High Court's reasoning, upheld the acquittal of the accused. The Court found no compelling reason to interfere with the High Court's judgment, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeals were dismissed.