Amin Khan vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. Six persons faced trial for alleged

commission of offences punishable under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (in short the `IPC') and Sections 3 and 35 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short

the `Arms Act'). The learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, acquitted the accused

persons of all the charges. Being aggrieved by the finding of learned Sessions

Judge the State filed an application seeking leave to appeal under Section 378

(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code'). On 26.5.2006

the High Court granted leave and summoned the respondents through bailable

warrants. On 14.8.2006 the State filed an application in terms of Section 390

read with Section 482 of Code for revoking the earlier order and to commit the

accused persons to prison after summoning them through non bailable warrants.

A similar prayer was also made in the Revision Petition filed by widow of the

deceased.

The prayers were accepted by the impugned orders.

The High Court noted that in the Test Identification Parade (in short the `TI

Parade') held on 20th and 22nd March, 2005 Banwari Lal (PW-18) had correctly

identified the accused persons. He also identified the accused persons in the trial

Court. The foot prints of the respondents left at the spot were taken on 23.3.2005

before the learned Additional District Magistrate, Alwar and as per the Forensic

Science Laboratory report foot moulds were found to be that of the accused

persons. The investigating agency also seized hair from the hands of the

deceased and as per DNA report, the seized hair tallied with the hair of accused

Mubin and Amin. As per the testimony of the Investigating Officer various

criminal cases were pending against the accused persons.

Stand of the State as well as the petitioner in the revision petition was that

the acquittal of the respondents was based on mere presumptions without

considering the evidence on record and, therefore, it was liable to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the accused contended that the presumption as to

the innocence of the accused stands fortified by their acquittal by the trial Court.

It was urged that refusal of bail is never for the purpose of punishment. In view of

the long period taken for disposal of appeals, it would be improper to send the

accused to custody. The evidence of identification was also pointed out to be

without foundation and therefore the trial Court rightly discarded it.

4. The High Court considering the rival stands passed the following order:

"On giving our thoughtful consideration to the nature of the accusation made

against the accused respondents, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed and the gravity of the offence we direct that warrant of

arrest be issued against the accused respondents Mubin and Amin and they be

produced before the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar who shall commit them to

prison pending the disposal of appeal. We however grant bail to accused

respondents Taiyab, Ilias, Islam and Khursheed and direct on furnishing

personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount they

be released on bail on the following conditions:-

(i) They will not commit any offence during the pendency of appeal.

(ii) On the last day of each month they will appear before the SHO Police

Station, MIA Alwar who shall refer their presence in the daily Rajnamcha.

5. The order is questioned by the accused persons. Two Special Leave

Petitions were filed. By order dated 21.11.2008 prayer was made for withdrawal

of SLP (Crl.) No.432 of 2007. The same was dismissed as withdrawn.

6. So far as the present appeal is concerned it is submitted that the true

scope and ambit of Section 390 of Code has not been kept in view.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the

judgment.

8. Section 390 of Code reads as follows:

"Arrest of accused in appeal from acquittal- When an appeal in presented under

Section 378, the High court may issue a warrant directing that the accused be

arrested and brought before it or any subordinate Court, and the Court before

which he is brought may commit him to prison pending the disposal of the

appeal or admit him to bail."

9. To prove allegations of dacoity under Section 396 IPC against accused

persons, the prosecution has to prove that the accused persons were five or

more than five in number. On 12.3.2005 at about 08.00 P.M. in the night the

accused persons assaulted the accountant Chhote Lal at Radha Kishan filling

Station (Petrol Pump) and fled away jointly with the booty of Rs.1,61,800/-.

10. In committing this plunder, one of the accused persons murdered Raj

Kumar Goyal, the owner of Petrol Pump by firing a shot from the gun.

11. It is the averment of respondents that by the eye evidence of the

prosecution, it is proved that while committing dacoity, murder of Ramavtar Goel,

was committed by firing a shot from a 12 bore gun by accused Mubin.

12. It is also the averment of prosecution that the evidence also confirms

commission of offence by accused persons. Foot prints and finger prints of

accused persons have been taken from the spot. In this context, positive report

has been received from FSL, Jaipur. Hair of accused persons left in the nails of

hands of the deceased were tested with the blood sample of accused persons

and positive report in relation to accused persons Mubin and Amin, was found on

DNA test. Fire arms were discovered on the information of accused persons. On

the information of accused Mubin one 12 bore one barrel country made gun was

discovered, forensic report of cartridges obtained from the spot, and of the blood

obtained from the body of the deceased, prove that this cartridge and pellets

were fired from the gun of accused Mubin. It is the case of the prosecution that

offence punishable under Section 396 IPC is proved beyond doubt.

13. On behalf of prosecution, two eye witnesses of the happening Banwari

Lal (PW 10) and Jaswant Singh (PW-19) were produced.

14. In order to resolve the controversy poised for our consideration, it will be

useful to have a look at Section 390 Cr.P.C. which provides thus:

"When an appeal is presented under Section 379, the High Court may issue a

warrant directing that the accused be arrested and brought before it or any

subordinate court, and the court before which he is brought may commit him to

prison pending the disposal of the appeal or admit him to bail."

12. Section 390 corresponds to Section 427 of the repealed Code. In the

present section the word and figure "Section 378" are substituted for the words

and figures "Section 411-A sub section (2) of Section 417" in the old Section.

Except for this change, no other changes are made. Under this section the High

Court has the power to re-arrest the accused pending the disposal of an appeal

against his acquittal.

13. The High Court has found that prima facie the evidence regarding

identification made in court and DNA test has not been considered in the proper

perspective by the trial Court. It was noted that the DNA report of the hair

allegedly seized from the hands of the deceased prima facie established that it

was of the accused Mubin and Amin who remained throughout the trial in

custody. That being so, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment to

warrant interference.

14. The appeal is dismissed.