Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Rajjan Khan v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Rajjan Khan v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

(Supreme Court Of India)

Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2009 of 2021) | 09-07-2021

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 09.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 983 of 2015.

3. Seven persons were tried in Special Sessions Trial No. (Robbery)-45/15 in the Court of Additional Session Judge and Special Judge (Robbery), Bhind. By its judgment and order dated 05.10.2015 the trial court found original accused Nos. 1, 4, 6 & 7 viz., Awadh Kishore, Rajjan Khan, Jeetu alias Jitendra and Rakesh Khatik guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 397 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code ('the IPC, for short) and under the provisions of The Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.P.D.V.P.K. Act 1981'). They were sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment of 10 years for the offences under the IPC and for two years under the M.P.D.V.P.K. Act 1981. The appeals preferred by them were dismissed by the High Court which decision is presently under challenge at the instance of appellant Rajjan Khan.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that unlike the other three convicted accused viz., Awadh Kishore, Rakesh Khatik and Jeetu alias Jitendra, no test identification parade was undertaken with respect to the appellant.

5. It must be stated here that the names of the accused or marks of identification were not spelt out in the First Information Report. The informant, who was examined as PW-1 admitted in his cross examination as under:

"17. On the day of the incident I was not knowing the name of Rajjan. It is true that the day on which the sub inspector had taken my statement, on that day he had not told the name of Raj j an. When last time I had come to give statement, on that day I knew the name of the accused, since the accused had covered his face therefore I had not taken his name. The accused had covered his face on that day therefore I could not recognize him, my wish was to give statement after identifying him in front of him. Since on that day the time of the court got finished therefore I was not able to say my matter."

6. We have heard Mr. Shishir Kumar Saxena, learned Advocate for the appellant, and Mr. Gopal Jha, learned Advocate for the State.

7. It is accepted fairly by Mr. Jha that apart from the evidence of the informant, who was examined as PW-1, there is no other evidence regarding identification of the appellant. The admission given by the concerned witness in the cross examination raises considerable doubts about the capacity of the witness to sufficiently identify the appellant.

8. Another feature highlighted by Mr. Gopal Jha, learned Advocate for the State, was to the effect that pursuant to the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was recovered. Since the money was recovered pursuant to such statement, the statement to that effect would certainly be relevant.

9. However, considering the entirety of the material on record, mere factum of recovery of some money from the house of the appellant by itself, in our view, would not be sufficient to sustain the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant. We, therefore, allow thisappeal giving benefit of doubt to the appellant and acquit him of all the charges leveled against him.

10. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other crime.

Advocate List

  • Mr. Shishir Kumar Saxena  Mr. R. N. Pareek  Mr. Chirag Sharma  Ms. Payal Swarup  Ms. Pooja Sharma  Mr. Praveen Swarup 

  • Mr. Gopal Jha  Mr. Nishant Verma  Mr. Shreyash Bhardwaj  Mr. Akhilesh Kr. Pandey  

Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
Eq Citations
  • (2021) AIR (SC) 3598
  • 2021 (4) RCR (Criminal) 605
  • 2022 (1) CRIMES 119
  • (2022) 12 SCC 452
  • LQ/SC/2021/3290
Head Note

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 313 — Benefit of doubt — Conviction of seven accused under Ss. 397 and 392 IPC and under The Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 — Held, apart from evidence of informant (PW1), there is no other evidence regarding identification of appellant — Admission given by concerned witness in cross-examination raises considerable doubts about capacity of witness to sufficiently identify appellant — Another feature highlighted by State was to the effect that pursuant to statement of appellant recorded under S. 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, an amount of Rs 5000 was recovered — Since money was recovered pursuant to such statement, statement to that effect would certainly be relevant — However, considering entirety of material on record, mere factum of recovery of some money from house of appellant by itself would not be sufficient to sustain order of conviction and sentence recorded against appellant — Appellant, therefore, given benefit of doubt and acquitted of all charges levelled against him (Paras 7 to 10)