Crl.A. No. 80 of 2003

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 80 OF 2003

   SHAFIKUTH HUSSAIN @ RAVI ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

    STATE OF A.P. ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. This appeal by way of special leave arises out  

of the following facts:-

1.1 At  about  3:45p.m.  On  19th September,  1991,  A1  

armed with a country made revolver and A2 and A3 armed  

with knives reached the first floor of the Engineering  

Construction Company belonging to one S.V. Laxmipathi  

Rao in Ram Nagar, Vishakapatnam.  They enquired from  

P.W. 1 about the whereabouts of the owner. He replied  

that he would come the next day.  A1 then asked P.W. 1  

to get some drinking water and as she went inside the  

residential  premises  to  do  so,  A1  followed  her  and  

entered the house.  On seeing that A1 was following  

her, P.W. 1 raised an alarm, but he threatened her by  

showing  a  knife  and  when  she  tried  to  run  away  he  

caused  an injury to her with the knife.  A1 also

Crl.A. No. 80 of 2003

forcibly removed the chain which P.W. 1 was wearing  

around her neck.  In the meantime,  one Swarajya Laxmi  

accosted the accused as to who he was, but A1 came to  

her  side  as  well  holding  out  a  knife  and  forcibly  

pushed her down by placing his hand on her chest.  In  

the meanwhile A2 also entered the building carrying a  

revolver and when P.W. 2 tried to rescue  P.W. 1, A2  

forcibly pushed her, due to which she fell down.  The  

neighbours in the meanwhile gathered outside and on  

hearing  the  commotion  the  accused  attempted  to  run  

away.  P.W.  6,  however,  chased  the  accused  and  

apprehended A1 and a folding knife with blood stains  

was recovered from him.  A1 was also interrogated and  

information  was  extracted   with  regard  to  the  

identities of A2 and A3 and they too were arrested and  

two rounds of ammunition were recovered from  A2 and a  

knife  from  A3.   After  the  completion  of  the  

investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the  

accused  for  offences  punishable  under  Sections  442,  

393, 394, 397 and 398 of the IPC.  It appears that the  

trial of the accused was separated with respect to the  

accused and A3 is the only accused before us today.  

The  trial  court  on  a  consideration  of  the  evidence  

primarily  that  of  P.W.  6,  convicted  the  accused  

appellant for offences punishable under Sections 452  

and  393  of  the  IPC  and  sentenced  him  to  undergo

Crl.A. No. 80 of 2003

imprisonment for 3½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.  

500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and for 2 months for  

the offence under Section 393 of IPC both sentences to  

run concurrently.  An appeal was thereafter taken to  

the  High  Court  which  confirmed  the  judgment  of  

conviction but reduced the maximum sentence to one year  

on both counts.  The matter is before us by way of  

special leave.

2. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties and gone through the record.  We find that the  

only witness with regard to the involvement, if any, of  

the appellant is P.W. 6, as he was the one who had  

chased all the three accused but apprehended only A1  

who is not before us.  It is clear from the record that  

the appellant was arrested subsequent to the arrest of  

A1 on the basis of information provided by A1 to the  

police.   The  trial  court  and  the  High  Court  have  

disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, the star  

witnesses of the prosecution, on the ground that it  

lacked credibility as there were many contradictions  

therein.  The courts, accordingly, have relied on P.W.  

6 alone.  We have gone through the evidence of P.W. 6  

and this is what he has to say in his examination in  

chief:

“I can only identify the person who  was chased by me.  I did not participate in

Crl.A. No. 80 of 2003

the  test  identification  parade.   Accused  present  in the  Court was  not among  the 3  persons  we  chased.   My  statement  was  recorded by the Police.”  

 3. A perusal of the evidence of P.W. 6 surprises us  

that the trial court and High Court still thought it  

fit  to  rely  on  this  evidence  for  purposes  of  the  

appellants conviction in the light of the fact that  

P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have been disbelieved by both the  

courts below and had failed to identify the appellant  

even in court,  whereas P.W. 6 has completely discarded  

the  prosecution  story  as  well.   We,  thus,  have  no  

option  but  to  allow  the  appeal.   We,  accordingly,  

reverse the judgments of the courts below.

4. The  appeal  is  allowed,  the  appellant  is  

acquitted.  His bail bonds are discharged.

    ..................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ..................J      [J.M. PANCHAL]

NEW DELHI      DECEMBER 10, 2009.