Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Gudela Ramesh And Anr. vs The State Of A.P. on 10 December, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(1)ALD(CRI)140, 2003(1)ALT(CRI)178
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioners were tried for the offence under Section 411 of IPC by the Court of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, in C.C.No.587 of 1999.
2. It was the case of the prosecution hat P.W.1 submitted a complaint on 11-10-1998 that his Hero Honda Motor Cycle, which was parked at Hotel Daspalla, Visakhapatnam, was stolen on 10-10-1998.PW.2, the Sub Inspector of Police, IV Town Police Station, was reported to have conducting night patrolling on the early hours of 21-10-1998 and when he came across the petitioners riding an unnumbered motor cycle, he stopped them. The petitioners are said to have confessed that they have stolen the motorcycle from Daspalla Hotel. Charge sheet was filed against the petitioners in the trial Court. In the trial, the owner of the vehicle and complainant was examined as PW.1, SI of Police, who had alleged to recover the motorcycle from the petitioners, was examined as PW.2 and the Investigating Officer was examined as PW.3.The Complaint is marked as Ex.P1, Occurrence Report prepared by PW.2 is marked as Ex.P2 and FIR is marked as Ex.P3. The trial Court found that the charge against the petitioners was proved and accordingly convicted them for the offence under Section 411 of IPC and imposed the sentence of simple imprisonment for five months.
3. The petitioners carried the matter in appeal by filing Crl.A.No.105 of 1999 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. The lower appellate Court while upholding the conviction reduced the sentence from five months to two months. The petitioners challenge the same in this Crl.R.C.
4. Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that except the self-serving statements of P.Ws. 2 and 3, there was no independent or reliable evidence before the trial Court to convict the petitioners. He states that the prosecution has failed to establish that the petitioners have committed the crime and there were any amount of lapses in the trial in connecting the petitioners with the alleged crime.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that having regard to the fact that the seizure was effected at early hours viz., at 4 AM, no independent witnesses could be expected to be available and there is nothing in law which warrants the Court to exclude the evidence of Police officials on the simple ground that it is not corroborated by any independent witnesses.
6. The petitioners were convicted on the basis of the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.1 is the complainant. In his complaint, he did not name the petitioners, or for that matter, any other persons. PW.3 is the Investigating Officer, who has never come in contact with the petitioners. Therefore, it has to be seen as to how reliable the evidence of PW.2 was.
7. It is not as if the that the alleged recovery from the petitioners was made at a far away and secluded place, nor that the crime is such a sophisticated one that it is impossible to secure the presence of independent witnesses, while preparing the Occurrence Report or effecting seizure of the stolen property. Undisputedly, the motorcycle was said to have been recovered from the petitioners in the Visakhapatnam town. Under Section 100(5) of Cr.P.C., any Panchanama or such reports are required to be made in the presence of independent witnesses. It is true that the same is not mandatory and the persons who figured as Panchs are not required to depose as witnesses in the Court. However, preparation of Panchanama in the presence of independent witnesses adds credibility to the report as such. The caution administered in various provisions of the Evidence Act, particularly, Sections 24, 27, etc., cannot be ignored. Law requires that the Court should not accept the version of the Investigating authorities readily. While corroboration of such version is imperative, absence of the same is an exception. The prosecution has to discharge a heavy burden when it wants the Court to accept the version of the Police Officials, unsupported by any independent witness. It is only cases of exceptional nature where it is next to impossibility to secure the presence of independent witnesses that the Courts will tend to accept the evidence of prosecuting agency, even if it is not corroborated by independent witnesses.
8. Here is a simple and normal case where two persons were stopped on a public road at 4-00 AM by the Police. Even for accosting them and finding out the details as to their possession of the vehicle, it takes quite a considerable time. PW.2 has prepared an Occurrence Report-E.P2, which runs to two full pages, which will take not less than half an hour. It is next to impossibility for any one to believe that, during the time commencing from stopping the vehicle of the petitioners till the preparation and conclusion of the Occurrence Report marked as Ex.P2; no person has passed through the road. In his deposition, PW2 did not offer any explanation in this regard.
9. The courts below have readily inferred certain state of affairs to accept Ex.P2 on its face value, by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court . While there is absolutely no dispute as regards the proposition laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I do not have any hesitation to hold that the circumstances what warrant its application did not exist.
10. Several circumstances, such as absence of engine and chassis number in the complaint submitted by PW.1, lack of knowledge of the same to PW.3, etc remained unexplained. The net result is that the conviction is based solely upon the Occurrence Report-Ex.P2 prepared by PW.2. It can be said unhesitatingly that it is not at all safe to convict persons on the basis of such uncorroborated and self-serving versions emanating from the Police officials. The conviction of the petitioners cannot be sustained either on facts or in law. The same is accordingly set aside and the Crl.R.C. is allowed.