Introduction
- Date of the Judgment: September 25, 2008
- Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1531 of 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3925 of 2007)
- Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J., Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.
Can a person be convicted under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) based on the evidence presented? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case involving an appeal against a judgment by the Rajasthan High Court, which upheld the conviction of the accused for offences related to robbery and causing hurt. The bench, comprising Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, examined the evidence and legal arguments to determine the validity of the conviction.
Case Background
On April 24, 2002, between 8:30 PM and 8:45 PM, Shri Nand Kishore, brother-in-law of Jagdish Soni (PW-1), was robbed. The incident occurred between Partani on-Ka-Rasta and Gali Mahadev in Jaipur. The assailants inflicted a grievous head injury on Nand Kishore with an iron rod and stole his bag. Jagdish Soni reported the incident to the Manak Chowk Police Station, Badi Chopad, Jaipur.
Based on this report, the police registered FIR (Exhibit P-2) under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. During the investigation, Waseem @ Raju was arrested on May 2, 2002, at the Kadkad-duma Court premise in Delhi. Aslam @ Deewan was arrested on May 11, 2002, at a house near Bilala Masjit, Delhi.
Waseem provided information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, leading to the recovery of the crime scene, a rented cycle used in the incident, and the stolen bag from House No. C-48, Shahid Nagar, Gali No. 3, Police Station Sahibabad (UP). He also disclosed that Rs. 10,000 from the stolen money was given to Bharat Properties, Loaini Road, to purchase a plot. This amount was recovered in the presence of witnesses Sajid and Manzoor Hasan.
The iron rod used to injure Nand Kishore was seized on May 15, 2002. The handbag and other gold items were recovered based on the information provided by the accused.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| April 24, 2002 | Robbery of Shri Nand Kishore between 8:30 PM and 8:45 PM. |
| May 2, 2002 | Arrest of Waseem @ Raju at Kadkad-duma Court premise, Delhi. |
| May 11, 2002 | Arrest of Aslam @ Deewan near Bilala Masjit, Delhi. |
| May 15, 2002 | Seizure of the iron rod used in the robbery. |
Legal Framework
- Section 394, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt during the commission or attempted commission of robbery. It states:
“If, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, the offender voluntarily causes hurt, such offender, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” - Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Pertains to the discovery of facts based on information received from an accused. It allows for the admissibility of information that distinctly relates to the fact discovered.
Arguments
- Appellant’s Argument: The evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to prove the appellant’s guilt under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- State’s Argument: The state supported the judgment of the High Court, asserting that the evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution was sufficient to fasten the guilt on the appellant for offence punishable under Section 394 IPC.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conviction under Section 394 IPC | Upheld the conviction | The court found that the identification parade was properly conducted, and the accused was identified by the injured witness. The recoveries made based on the information provided by the accused were also considered valid evidence. |
Authorities
- Section 394, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court considered the requirements for establishing guilt under this section, noting that it applies to cases where voluntary hurt is caused during the commission of robbery.
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The court examined the admissibility of information provided by the accused, which led to the discovery of crucial evidence.
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Evidence was insufficient to prove guilt under Section 394 IPC | Rejected. The court found the evidence, including the identification parade and recoveries, sufficient. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision in Aslam @ Deewan vs. State of Rajasthan was influenced by several factors, including the proper conduct of the identification parade, the recovery of stolen articles based on information provided by the accused, and the severity of the crime. The court emphasized that the minimum sentence of ten years was justified, given the habitual offender status of the accused.
| Factor | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Identification Parade | 30% |
| Recovery of Stolen Articles | 40% |
| Habitual Offender Status | 30% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, reinforcing the importance of proper evidence collection and presentation in robbery cases.
- The case highlights the significance of identification parades and the admissibility of evidence recovered based on information provided by the accused.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court found no reason to interfere with the judgment, emphasizing the severity of the crime and the habitual offender status of the accused.