LexSTATE OF U.P. versus ILYAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 1088 A STATE OF U.P. ~ v. ILYAS (Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2001) B NOVEMBER 12, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] . Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 394 and 397 - Robbery with the c help of deadly weapons - Injury caused - Eye-witness to the incident- Identification of accused in Tl Parade - FIR lodged u/s. 394 - Conviction by trial court u/s. 397 - Acquittal by High Court holding that identification of accused was doubtful; that conviction under s. 397 alone not sustainable; and since use D of weapon not established conviction u/s. 397 not correct - On appeal, .held: Finding of he High Court is perverse and abrupt - However, accused is convicted uls. 394 for which he was originally charged. E Respondent accused alongwith one co-accused was alleged to have· committed robbery on the point of country-made pistol and knife. In the course they also caused injuries to the victims-PWs. FIR was lodged u/s. 394 IPC. Trial court relying on the evidence of the eye- F witnesses (PWs 4, 5 and 6) and Tl Parade, held both accused guilty u/s. 397 IPC. High Court acquitted both the accused holding that Tl parade was doubtful as the accused must have been shown to the witnesses and that conviction u/s. 397 IPC alone is not sustainable as it is not a substantive offence and could have been G convicted u/s. 394/397; and that since use of weapons was not fully established conviction u/s. 397 IPC was not called for. Hence, the present appeal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court H 1088 STATE OF U.P. v. ILYAS 1089 HELD: The conclusions arrived at by the High Court A are absolutely sketchy. It came to abrupt conclusions that the accused must have been shown to the witnesses. There is no foundation to such a plea. First Information Report was lodged under Section 394 IPC and charge was accordingly framed. Because of the use of deadly B weapon, the trial Court convicted the accused under Section 397 IPC. The trial Court could have altered the charge, but that was not done. The High Court could have altered the co'nviction and imposed adequate sentence. There was no prejudice involved. The High c Court's reasonings were perverse. However, the respondent is convicted for offence punishable under Section 394 IPC for which he was originally charged. (Paras 5 and 6] (1092-F-H; 1093-A] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITION: Criminal Appeal D No. 168 of 2001. From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.3.2000 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 830 & 917 of 1980. E' T.N. Singh, Rajeev Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, for the Appellant. Sudhir Kulshreshtha and Shakeel Ahmed for the Respondent. F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High G Court directing acquittal of the respondent. Learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, found the respondent as well as one Multan guilty for offence punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentenced each of them to 7 years' rigorous , -- - t-1- 1090 SUPREME COURT REPOR1 S [2008] 15 S.C.R ... A imprisonment. 2. Two appealswere filed i.e. one by Multan and the other by the present respondent. The High Court by the impugned judgment directed their acquittal. According to the High Court B the identification was not established and that arrest of the respondents was doubtful and they cannot be treated to have been arrested in the manner stated by the prosecution. . ~ ' 3. Backg~oun~f facts in a. nutshell are as follows: · c Written report (Ex. Ka. 5) of the incident in question was deliveredl;)y Mahen.dra Singh at Police Station Bhagwanpur on July 4(1979 at 1.30 P.M. First Information report (Ex. Ka. 6) . was then drawn up and relevant entries were ·made in· the general diary, of which Ex. Ka.7 is a copy. The prosecution D case, briefly stated, is that Mahendra Singh was employed as a Munshi with Sardar Prithipal Singh and Company. On July 3, 1979, Mahendra Singh reached village Comawala· to settle accounts with the labourers working at the brick-kiln owned by Prithipal Singh and company. He stayed over night at the brick E kiln. Others, who slept at the brick kiln that night, were Sarnam Singh, Ram Rikhshpal, Ram Pal and Mustaque. A lighted lamp was availabl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.