STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus NETRAPAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 301 · Decided: 27-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
A 
v. 
NETRAPAL AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 27, 2007 
[C.K. THAKKERAND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860/Arms Act, 1959-Section 395/Section 3 rlw s. 
25(J)(a)-Conviction under-Acquittal by High Court granting benefit of 
doubt-Justification of-Held: In facts and circumstances of the case, 
prosecution failed to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the accused were C 
the persons who had committed the dacoity-Hence, acquittal justified. 
Judicial depreciation-High Court making harsh observations and 
using strong language against prosecution witnesses-Held: Such comments 
neither justified nor called for-In view of conflicting statements, the Court D 
may not believe a version against the accused-But cannot say that the other 
version was 'fq/se' or 'incorrect'-Judiciql restraints qnd discipline qre 
--; 
necessary to orderly administration of justice. 
During midnight dacoity was committed in the house of complainant and 
two others. 10-15 dacoits armed with lathis and guns attacked them and looted E 
their movable properties. In the incident they shot complainant's father. Case 
was registered. Complainant stated that he could recognize the accused in 
electric light. Police recovered empty bores from the spot. Accused were 
arrested and put to identification. Witnesses identified them. Recovered 
articles were also identified by the owners. Trial Court convicted and sentenced 
four accused under section 395 IPC and one among the four and two others F 
-<" 
under section 3 read with section 25 of Arms Act. High Court acquitted all 
the accused of the charges levelled against them giving them benefit of doubt 
in identification of accused persons; recovery of articles at their instance and 
their identity. Hence, the present appeals. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. I. Having considered the facts and circumstances in their 
entirety, the High Court was not wrong in coming to the conclusion that the 
prosecution failed to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the accused were 
G 
301 
H 
302 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A the persons who had committed the dacoity and, hence, they could not be 
convicted. jParas 8 and 1911308-GI 
~• 
1.2. High Court found that the dacoity was committed at mid night; there 
was inconsistency regarding electricity in the village and as such the 
statement of witnesses that they had identified dacoits in the light was false 
B and unbelievable. With regard to identification of accused, at the identification 
parade, the High Court considered the evidence of PW's who stated that they 
came to know about the arrest of dacoits after few days. High Court observed 
that all this shows that "the accused persons were arrested just after 7-8 
days of the incident" but their arrest was shown on December 21/22, 1987. 
C For a number of days, the accused persons were detained at the police station. 
Immediately, their arrest was not shown. The Court observed that it meant 
the arrest of the accused persons, their giving information as well as the 
recovery were "all false ones and they all have been IJ!anipulated later on". 
The Court also found the recovery of the articles as doubtful because prior to 
the arrest of the accused persons and before their giving information under 
D section 27 of the Evidence Act, the articles were recovered by the police. Hence, 
the alleged recovery as well as the identification of the ornaments were all 
farce. The High Court also observed that identification parade was not 
1 
conducted in a fair and proper manner and no precautionary steps had been 
<' 
E 
taken by the Magistrate. !Paras 5, 6 and 711305-C, G-A, B-C] 
2. I. While allowing the appeals filed by the accused and in extending 
benefit of doubt, the High Court was rather harsh in making certain 
observations and in using strong language against the prosecution witnesses. 
It observed that the prosecution evidence was not consistent as regards 
availability of electric light at the place of offence. One may appreciate that 
F in such circumstances, the Court may be on its guard and consider the 
evidence carefully. However, the High Court, observed that the statements of 
prosecution witnesses were 'completely false and incorrect ones'. The 
comment was neither called for nor justified. In view of conflicting statements, 
the Court may not believe a version against the accused. But it does not 
necessarily mean that the other version was 'false' or 'incorr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.