Conviction Under Section 392 IPC Overturned Due to Doubts in Evidence and Alleged False Implication
In a significant development, the Allahabad High Court has overturned the conviction of Lakhan Singh and Ramesh in a decades-old train robbery case, granting them the benefit of doubt. The judgment, delivered by Justice Madan Pal Singh, set aside the earlier conviction under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, which had sentenced the accused to three years of rigorous imprisonment.
The incident, which dates back to February 12, 1984, involved the robbery of a complainant, Jitendra Kumar, who was traveling alone on a train. According to the prosecution, the accused boarded the train and allegedly looted the complainant by threatening him with knives, stealing his H.M.T. watch and Rs. 125 in cash, and injuring him. The accused were subsequently arrested within an hour of the incident, and knives were reportedly recovered from them.
However, the court found several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. The arrest and recovery of knives were deemed doubtful, with the court noting the improbability of the accused being apprehended so quickly given the distance between the alleged crime scene and the arrest location. Additionally, the lack of recovery of the stolen items and the absence of a medical examination of the complainant further weakened the prosecution's case.
Defense witnesses testified that the accused were arrested from their homes, casting further doubt on the police's account of the arrest. The court also considered the possibility of false implication by the police, suggesting that the complainant's identification of the accused could have been influenced by law enforcement.
In light of these findings, the court concluded that the evidence did not conclusively prove the guilt of the accused, thereby granting them the benefit of doubt and acquitting them of all charges. The judgment underscores the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for meticulous examination of prosecution claims in criminal cases.
Bottom Line:
Conviction under Section 392 IPC set aside due to benefit of doubt arising from inconsistencies in prosecution evidence, doubtful recovery of knives, lack of corroborative evidence, and possible false implication by the police.
Statutory provision(s): Section 392 IPC, Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Lakhan Singh v. State, (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2827756
