Khushvant @ Dabbu vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court held that the conviction under Sections 392/397 of the IPC could not be sustained. While acknowledging that enmity alone might not demolish a prosecution case, the Court found significant procedural flaws. Specifically, the identification of the stolen chain was vitiated because the complainant stated it was conducted in an open place in the presence of police witnesses, contradicting the proper procedure. Furthermore, the bill for the golden chain was prepared on a letterhead and lacked details like GST, rendering it unreliable. The Court noted that no independent witnesses supported the seizure memo, and key eye-witnesses did not support the prosecution. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Court emphasized that conviction cannot be based on suspicion, especially when the punishment is stringent, and the burden of proof on the prosecution is heavy. The Court concluded that the evidence did not conclusively prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. The order regarding the disposal of seized property was confirmed.

Facts

This criminal appeal was filed by Khushvant @ Dabbu against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated September 10, 2022, passed by the Eight Additional Session Judge, Ujjain. The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 392/397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to seven years imprisonment and a fine. The prosecution alleged that on August 26, 2021, the appellant pointed a knife at the complainant, Brijgopal Yadav, and snatched a golden chain worth Rs. 20,000/-. The incident was allegedly witnessed by Binnu Badoriya and Bablu Mechanic. An FIR was lodged, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The trial court convicted the appellant. The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated due to prior disputes, that key witnesses did not support the prosecution, the FIR was belated, the seized chain's weight differed, and the identification parade was vitiated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are correct in law and fact, considering the evidence presented? The appellant argued that the conviction was erroneous because: (a) the alleged eye-witnesses failed to support the prosecution case; (b) the FIR was lodged belatedly; (c) there was a prior dispute between the complainant and the appellant, suggesting false implication; (d) the weight of the seized chain differed from the stolen chain; and (e) the identification of the chain was vitiated due to the presence of police witnesses during the identification parade. The appellant relied on the principle that a conviction cannot be based on suspicion and that the prosecution bears a heavy burden of proof, especially with stringent punishments. The respondent/State argued that the trial court properly appreciated the evidence and that the punishment was not unwarranted given the heinousness of the offence, requesting the dismissal of the appeal.