Doubts on Recovery of Pistol And Statements of Witnesses: Acquittal :Supreme Court
On 29 March 2023, In a recent Judgement ANWAR @ BHUGRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA, Supreme Court observed that the prosecution’s case against the appellant was doubtful and lacked sufficient evidence. The court noted discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, including the complainant, Jahid, who had improved his statement, and inconsistencies in the FIR and the evidence presented. The recovery of the pistol from the appellant was also questionable, as there were conflicting memos regarding his personal search and the possession of the pistol. Moreover, two witnesses who had arrived at the scene of the crime on a tractor did not support the prosecution’s version. One witness turned hostile, while the other denied the recoveries.
Facts
The incident took place on 04.04.1994, when the complainant Jahid (PW-4) was apprehended by three persons near the cremation ground while returning to his village after purchasing grocery items. The accused persons had demanded Jahid to hand over whatever he had, otherwise he would be eliminated. The accused persons had weapons like a drant, knife, and pistol. They had also inflicted injuries on Jahid and others.
The trial court convicted Anwar @ Bhugra, Satpal, and Om Parkash @ Bablu, and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years under Sections 394 and 397 IPC along with a fine of ₹2,000/-. The trial court also convicted Anwar @ Bhugra under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ₹500/-. The High Court had upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court in both cases.
Arguments
The appellant had contended that the prosecution’s version of events was concocted, and the recovery of the pistol was doubtful as the memo of personal search after the arrest of the appellant mentioned that nothing was found at the time of his personal search. Also, there were serious defects and anomalies in the deposition of the complainant and other witnesses.
Observed and Held
Supreme Court observed that the prosecution’s case against the appellant, Anwar @ Bhugra, was doubtful and lacked sufficient evidence. The court noted discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, including the complainant, Jahid, who had improved his statement, and inconsistencies in the FIR and the evidence presented. The recovery of the pistol from the appellant was also questionable, as there were conflicting memos regarding his personal search and the possession of the pistol. Moreover, two witnesses who had arrived at the scene of the crime on a tractor did not support the prosecution’s version. One witness turned hostile, while the other denied the recoveries.
The court concluded that the guilt of the appellant had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction and sentence could not be upheld. Accordingly, the court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and the Trial Court against the appellant. The bail bonds submitted by the appellant stand cancelled.
ANWAR @ BHUGRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
