Certificate in Case law

From Advocatespedia, ASSN: 137882
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Harish Chandra V. State of Uttar Pradesh


Facts of the case On 8th April, 1968 around 7 to 7:30 p.m., Avinash Kumar entered a train going towards Purnagiri in Pilibhit district. He boarded the train from chakarpur railway station. Further Harish Chandra and one of his co – accused, along with few of his team members, also entered the same Compartment of the train which was boarded by Avinash Kumar. When the train reached Tanakpur railway station between 9 to 9:30 p.m., the passenger started to deboard the train and thus great rush evolved inside the compartment. It was supposed that, at the time when the passengers started to deboard Ram Autar by force took away the wrist watch of Mr. Avinash Kumar (P.W.1). Further it was stated that when P.W.1 i.e. Avinash Kumar protested and raised the alarm, one of the partner of Ram Autar (Accused), Harish Chandra slapped Mr. Avinash Kumar (P.W.1) and then the companion of Accused hit (P.W.1) with a stick. Then Harish Chandra (Accused) with his companion jumped of the train. Avinash Kumar (P.W.1) followed them. Avinash Kumar (P.W.1) found a police constable and informed him about the incident. A search in the matter started and Harish Chandra along with his companions were found at a tea stall, at a very short distance. Avinash Kumar (P.W.1) recognized Harish Chandra(Accused) and Ram Autar as the individuals who had taken his wrist watch, and thus the police constables took control of them.

When the appellant herein Mr. Harish Chandra was questioned about the incident he took the constable to a nearby heap of ash which was lying there from few days and took the watch of Mr Avinash out of it. The watch was apprehended by the police constable under the Memorandum Ex. KA-1. Further, the chain of event was considered and a report was made on the basis of it at the police Station of Pilibhit. Police took charge of the Appellant Mr. Harish Chandra and Ram Autar for further proceeding. Both of the accused were charged for the commission of 394 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with the other three accused. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant Harish Chandra and Ram Autar but found the other three as innocent and thus set them free. Earlier the Temporary Session Judge, Pilibhit found appellant Harish Chandra and his co – accused Ram Autar guilty under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and thus sentenced them for ‘four years of rigorous imprisonment’. The High Court viewed the conviction. But reduced the punishment of rigorous imprisonment from four years to one year for Harish Chandra and two years for Ram Autar. Further, against the Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court dated April 30, 1971. Harish Chandra the Accused filed an appeal in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.[1]

Arguments in the Hon’ble Supreme Court Mr Frank Antony who filled the appeal on behalf of Harish Chandra argued that the Hon’ble high Court has done a ‘serious mistake of law’ in the placement of reliance that he the appellant has confessed before the police that where he placed the watch under the stimulus proceeding of Ram Murti who was the head Rakshak of the Railway Protection force. Frank Antony gave the reference of a case titled as ‘Ramkishan Mithanlal v. State of Bombay’ and urged that the confession lies under the purview of Section 24 of the Evidence Act and thus cannot be made admissible under the Section 27 of the same Act. Further Mr. Rana argued on behalf of Ram Murti who was the head Rakshak of the Railway Protection force, that since his client dint said about any relief to be provided to the accused hence the confession comes under the purview of Section 24 of the Evidence Act. Further he said that it might be the confession be in question but since the watch was recovered from the accused hence it is clear enough that he stole it and this can be the reason of his conviction. It was viewed that Mr. Rana justified for the argument that even if the confession was not proved the other facts our genuine and our sufficient to take the charge of the accused. Accused was proved to be a resident of Bareilly. Thus the evidence on record states no room is left for any doubt that he boarded the same compartment and that he stole the watch with help of the other person, Ram Autar who slapped Avinash Kumar (P.W.1). Further it was proved that their intention was very clear to rob Avinash Kumar (P.W.1) as they entered the same compartment and they were found near the railway station at the tea stall after the incident where the police constable took hold of him. Harish Chandra has not found it possible to grant any reason why Avinash Kumar (P.W. 1) should have deposed against him falsely after they weren't even knowing each other. It'd not therefore affect the merits of the case whether or not the so called confessional statement of the appellant is ignored of consideration altogether. The next been argued by Mr. Anthony that the recovery of watch had no reference to the guilt of Harish Chandra because it would even be that he merely knew that his friend Ram Autar had hidden the watch within the heap of ash and he simply took it out and gave it to the police without being a participant of the theft. This argument is quite baseless because the opposite party has placed satisfactory evidence on the record and therefore the sequence of events is sufficient to prove the participation of appellant Harish Chandra within the crime.

Mr. Frank Antony tried to curve the topic and wanted the facts to come under the purview of Section 390 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. As he stated that appellant do slapped P.W.1 Mr. Avinash Kumar but after the commission of the crime so it should not amount to robbery. But this argument was very much baseless as in the ambit of Section 390 it is very clear that when theft is robbery as in this case. It was also not proved that the Head Rakshak of Police investigated the case, hence brining the arguments to an end.[2]

Judgement by Hon’ble Supreme Court It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the punishment given by the High Court is not excessive and thus dismissed the Appeal and ordered Harish Chandra to surrender as he was on bail and complete his remaining sentence. Examination of Judgement It is very clear that the appellant has done a crime. He is provided less punishment as due to these ridiculous people are in fear to travel alone. He must be charged under Section 392 and 394 which are punishment for robbery and voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery.

Conclusion It is right to exercise the relief applicable by law but to an extent. Wrong petition is always dismissed therefore maintaining the belief of people in Law and Courts. So it can be concluded that though there is a corner for appeal then also lie does not works. Indian Courts have developed over time, making a effective system prevail.