Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 506 ii ipc in State vs Amanatullah And Another on 19 February, 2020Matching Fragments
3. After conclusion of the investigation the police filed the charge sheet on 29.02.2016 u/s 186/353/363/506/34 IPC, 23/26 JJ Act and u/s 3/14 Child Labour Act. Ld. Predecessor of this court took cognizance and summoned both the accused persons. Upon their appearance before the court, compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. was ensured. Ld. Predecessor of this Court after hearing the arguments on charge discharged the accused persons from all the offences vide detailed order dated 03.05.2018. In revision, the Ld. Sessions Court vide order dated 03.12.2018 set aside the order dated 03.05.2018 and held that the accused persons are liable to be tried for the offences u/s 109 r/w section 363 IPC and u/s 506 (ii) of IPC. In view of the said order a formal charge was served upon the accused persons on 05.12.2018 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State vs Amanatullah & anr.
ARGUMENTS:
25. Ld. APP for state has argued that on a combined reading of prosecution witnesses testimony, offence U/s 109 r/w section 363 IPC as well as offence u/s 506(II) IPC are proved beyond doubt. It is addressed that all the star witnesses of the prosecution have duly proved the case against the accused persons and their testimony remained unrebutted on the material aspects, thereby, proving the guilt of the accused persons. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Bachpan Bachao Andolan (BBA) filed its written submissions emphasizing on two major aspects. One, that all the prosecution witnesses have categorically proved the abetment made by the accused persons instigating the crowd committing the offence u/s 109 r/w section 363 IPC and the criminal intimidation u/s 506 (II) IPC. Secondly, it is not that as a consequence of abetment no offence is committed, still the accused persons are liable to be held guilty u/s 116 IPC. In support of her arguments, Ld. Counsel relied upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jamuna Singh v. State of Bihar, decided on 22.09.1966.
FINDINGS:
27. Arguments adduced by Ld. APP for State, Ld. Counsel for Bachpan Bachao Andolan and Ld. Defence Counsels for the accused persons have been heard. Evidences and documents on record perused carefully.FIR No. 380/10 Page 14 of 26
State vs Amanatullah & anr.
28. This Court has bestowed thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before the Court. Accused persons are indicted for the offences U/s 109 r/w section 363 IPC and section 506(II) IPC.
42. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Also, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such State vs Amanatullah & anr.
reasonable doubt entitles the accused to be acquitted. It is the settled principle of law that in case two version or two inferences can be drawn, the version favourable to accused has to be accepted by the court. None of the star witnesses of the prosecution has corroborated to the claim of PW3 that the accused persons have threatened him or any other member of the rescue team to attract section 506(II) IPC. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of offences u/s 109 read with section 363 IPC and section 506(II) IPC on record.