-Report by Harshit Yadav
In the case of Anwar @Bhugra V. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the trial court, which was confirmed by the High Court. The trial court convicted two accused under Section 394 and 397 IPC and the third accused under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
The complainant purchased and was going back to his village Rana Majra meanwhile he was apprehended by three persons near the cremation ground around 8:00 pm. They asked him to hand over things to them but he only had grocery items. On hearing this, they give him leg blows and fists and took his wristwatch. Seeing a tractor coming from the side of the village and he cried for help. On seeing this, two persons helped the complainant. Those three men inflicted injury on all these persons. Mahindra Singh a resident of village Balehra came to the spot and apprehended one person who was with a knife. He disclosed his name as Satpal and the other members were Anwar and Bablu. Taking advantage of darkness, Satpal flew from the place. An FIR was lodged by the Complainant. The trial court convicted Anwar and Bablu for a punishment of seven years and ₨ 2000. The High Court also confirmed the decision of the Trial Court.
The appellant contended that the story built by the prosecution on the basis of the complaint is concocted. Such incident was never has taken place. Recovery of the pistol is in doubt as the memo of personal search after the arrest of the appellant mentioned that nothing was found at that time. The memo of pistol says that the pistol was found when the arrest of the appellant was done. It is contrary to the memo of personal search. The allegation of the purse is also in doubt as nothing such allegation was made in the FIR. Many witnesses were declared hostile.
The counsel from the respondent said that the entire prosecution was duly supported by witnesses. Merely few witnesses were declared hostile, which does not demolish the case. The concurrent findings of facts were recorded by the lower courts and there is no call for interference by this Court.
In this case, the Apex Court held that the recovery and memos of the pistol are highly doubtful as the memo of personal search says that no pistol was found, but the memo of pistol says that it was found in the right pocket of the appellant when he was arrested which was highly doubtful in the view of Apex Court and can demolish the case by this reason only. The medical report of the pistol also suggests that it was never used. Witnesses turning hostile also holds importance, and material witness was not presented by the prosecution. Therefore on these findings by the Apex Court, the Court set aside the impugned judgement of the Trial Court which was confirmed by the High Court. The appeal was allowed thereafter.
READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/41h77af