LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus TALEVAR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 6 S.C.R. 1050 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. TALEVAR & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 937 of 2005) JUNE 17, 2011 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Evidence Act, 1872: c s. 114, /llustration (a) - Presumption on the basis of articles recovered in a case of dacoity with murders - Out of 8 accused two accused-respondents acquitted by High Court - Appeal by State - HELD: Admittedly, there is no evidence of identification of the accused - Recovery on disclosure 0 statements was not in close proximity of time from date of incident - More so, recovery is either of cash, small things or a scooter, which can change hands without any difficulty - Therefore, no presumption can be drawn against the accused uls 114, Illustration (a) - No adverse inference can be drawn E on the basis of the recoveries made on their disclosure statements to connect them with the crime - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 395, 396 and 397. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: F Appeal against acquittal - HELD: Only in exceptional cases, where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal - The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of G the accused and further that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence - Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference - In the instant case, there is no reason to interfere with the well reasoned H 1050 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. TALEVAR & ANR. 1051 judgment and order of the High Court acquitting the A respondents - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 395. 396 and 397 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136. An FIR was lodged by P.W.13 on the morning of 17 .12.1996 stating that in the previous night 8-10 8 miscreants committed dacoity in his house in which the dacoits killed two persons, namely, his chowkidar and his neighbour, and decamped with cash, jewellery and silver wares. Respondent no. 2 was arrested on 24.12.1996 and respondent no. 1 on 19.1.1997. On the basis of disclosure C statements made by them, some cash and some articles were recovered. In all, nine accused including the two respondents faced the trial. One of the accused died pending trial. The trial court convicted all the remaining 8 accused. On appeal, the High Court while maintaining conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded D to six of the accused, acquitted the respondents. In the instant appeal filed by the State, the question for consideration before the Court was: whether adverse inference could be drawn against the accused merely on E the basis of recoveries made on their disclosure statements. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Admitted facts remained, so far as the two · F respondents/accused are concerned, that no test identification parade was held at all. Further, none of the eye witnesses, particularly, 'PW.12', 'PW.13', 'PW.2', 'PW.14' and 'PW.15', identified either of the respondents in the court. Therefore, there is no evidence so far as their G identification is concerned. [para 6] [1057-G] 1.2. As regards the adverse inference on the basis of the recoveries made on disclosure statements made by H 1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 6 S.C.R. A the accused, the law on this issue can be summarized to the effect that where only evidence against the accused is recovery of stolen properties, then although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and murder might have been committed at the same time, it is not safe B to draw an inference that the person in possession of the stolen property had committed the murder. It also depends on the nature of the property so recovered, whether it was likely to pass readily from hand to hand. Suspicion should not take the place of proof. [para 7.7] C [1060-C] Guiab Chand v. State of M.P., 1995 (3) SCR 27 = AIR 1995 SC 1598; Tulsiram Kanu v. State, AIR 1954 SC 1; Geejaganda Somaiah v. State of Karnataka, 2007 (3) SCR 899 = AIR 2007 SC 1355, Sanwat Khan v. State of D Rajasthan, AIR 1956 SC 54; Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka 1983 (2) SCR 552 =AIR 1983 SC 446; Sanjay @ Kaka etc. etc. v. The State (NCT of Delhi) AIR 2001 SC 979; Ronny Alias Ronald James Alwaris & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 SC 1251; Baiju vs state of m.p. E 1978 (2) SCR 1978=
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.