The respondent herein was charge-sheeted along with two other accused
persons for commission of offence punishable under Section 395 of the I.P.C. The
Trial Court acquitted two accused persons who were co-accused with the respondent
herein but convicted the respondent under Section 395 of the I.P.C. and sentenced
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years.
Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence passed by the
Trial Court, the respondent filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court. By
passing the impugned judgment and order dated 31.7.2002 in Criminal Appeal No.
333/1986, the High Court acquitted the respondent from the charge under Section 395
IPC. The State being aggrieved of the said order of acquittal, has filed this appeal on
which we have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The High Court on consideration of the materials on record, found that there
is no evidence available on record on the basis of which there could be an order of
conviction and sentence against the respondent.
We have scrutinized the records and we find that the order of conviction and
sentence is based mainly on the ground that the DBBL gun of the respondent was
found by the side of one of the dacoits who was apprehended and was killed. We fail
to understand as to how that could be an incriminating evidence against the
respondent for there is no evidence on record to show that the respondent was either
physically present at the place of occurrence for the purpose of commission of dacoity
nor there is any evidence to show that he was a party to the conspiracy, if any.
On appreciation of the evidence on record, we find that the High Court has
given sufficient and cogent reasons for acquitting the respondent. The impugned
order does not call for any interference. This appeal, therefore, has no merit and is
dismissed accordingly.