STATE OF U.P. versus AJAI KUMAR

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 552 · Decided: 07-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 552 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
AJAI KUMAR 
(Criminal Appeal No. 277 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 7, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860- ss. 394, 307 and 411 - Prosecution 
under - Allegation of looting currency notes """'. Victims 
c .sustaining injury - Reco.itery of part thereof from the accused 
- RecOVf!Jred, notes- bearing stamp of the Bank from which 
withdrawn:- Acquittal by trial court - High Court confirming 
acq.uittal on sole ground that recovery af!d arrest of the 
accused was doubtful - On appeal, held: The ground relied 
on by High Court is not sustainable - Other vital aspects were 
D lost sight of...:. Matter remitted to High Court for reconsideration. 
Responde.nt-accused was prosecuted. ulss.; 394, 307 
and 411 IPG. Prosecution case· was that w.hile PW-1 
(in-formant) was going with PW2, after withdrawing money 
E from Bank, the appellant-accused alongwith three others 
snatched away the money after firing shots from a pistol. 
PWs 1 and 2 siiffered injuries. Part of the currency notes 
which were recovered from the a~cused persons, bore 
stamp of the Bank Befor~ conciusion of the trial, two of 
F the accused died and one absconded. 'Trial court 
acquitted the appellant. High Court dismissed the ·appeal 
of the State on the ground that arrest and recovery was 
doubtful as there was contradiction with regard to the date 
of arrest in view of a telegram sent by a relative. Hence 
G the present appeal. 
H 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High 
Court, the Court 
HELD: 1. High Court's conclusion is clearly 
552 
'r-
STATE OF U.P. v. AJAI KUMAR [PASAYAT, J.] 
553 
_...._ 
presumptuous. The fact taken into consideration by the A 
High Court could not have been a ground to hold that the 
prosecution version was unacceptable and the trial Court 
had rightly directed acquittal. The impugned order goes 
to show that the only ground on which the High Court 
found that there .was no scope for interference was the B, 
telegram sent by a relative. Various other factors which 
throw light on the controversy have not been considered 
in the proper perspective by the High Court. The effect of 
the evidence of the two victims and the recovery of part 
of the recovered amount has been completely lost sight c 
of. It is to be noted that contrary to what the trial Court 
ctnd the High Court noted, the seized recovery notes 
clearly show the stamp of the Bank from where the money 
was withdrawn. The relevance of this factor has been 
completely lost sight of by the trial Court and the High D' 
Court. [Paras 6 and 8] [557-E, G; 558-A, B] 
... 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
"' 
No. 277 of 2008. 
From the final Judgment and order dated 4.9.2006 of the 
E 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in G.A. No. 58/2003. 
S.G. Hussain, Manoj K Mishra and Anil Kumar Jha for the 
Appellant. 
K. Sarada Devi for the Respondent. 
.. 
~ 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the G 
appeal filed by the appellant-State questioning correctness of 
., 
) 
the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Originally, three 
persons apart from respondents were arrayed as accused 
persons. Two of them expired before trial was concluded and 
one had absconded and could not be arrested. 
H, 
554 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Four persons faced trial for offences punishable under 
Sections 394, 307, 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 
the 'IPC'). The allegation was that on 15.3.1994 while the 
informant alongwith one Sushil Kumar, son of the owner Shri 
. Gopal was going towards the shop after withdrawing 
B Rs.1,25,000/- from the State Bank of India, the accused persons 
forcibly snatched away the money after firing shots from the 
pistols held by them. The informant and aforesaid Sushi! Kumar 
suffered injuries and were taken to hospital for treatment. The 
. first information report was lodged and investigation was 
c undertaken and part of the money was recovered from the 
accused persons. Several witnesses were examined to further 
.the prosecution version. 
· 
· PWs 1 and 2 i.e. Bhagwat Narain and Sushil Kumar were 
··stated to have sustained injuries in the incident. The trial Court 
D directed acquittal primarily on the ground that the witnesses 
could not say definitely as regards th

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