2019 (11) TMI 1771 - HC - Indian Laws

Smuggling - illegal seizure of Gold Bars - fabrication of false evidence - wrongful confinement or wrongful restraint - HELD THAT - The entire basis of the case originates on 7.7.1993 when accused nos.1 2 are supposed to have gone to the house of complainant threatened him with arrest handcuff him and parade him in public and took him into the office of D.R.I without issuing any summons and the person who had witnessed that was the wife of complainant. Wife of the complainant has not been examined. Ms.Maria stated that that is not the subject matter of the complaint because the real issue starts only after complainant reached in the office of D.R.I. I do not agree with Ms.Maria in as much as if one reads the complaint and the evidence the so-called illegal act of the accused is supposed to have commenced at the residence of the complainant on 7.7.1993. As regards sections 341 342 348 of the Indian Penal Code again there is nothing to indicate that there was wrongful confinement or wrongful restraint. D.R.I was investigating illegal importation of gold bars. On record is the summons under section 108 of the Customs Act 1962 (Exh.P-3). To summon a person and interrogating him would not amount to wrongful confinement or illegal restraint. At the time of writing the impugned judgment the case against Bhupendra Doshi and Ramesh Mali by D.R.I. was still pending - The Court has come to the conclusion that D.R.I officers were within their rights and law and there can be no wrongful confinement or illegal restraint. The only witness to the entire alleged assault is complainant himself. It is settled law that even if complainant is the only witness or even if there is a single testimony if that testimony is so reliable Court need not ask for corroborating that evidence. At the same time if the evidence of that sole witness is not so clinching then certainly the Court would look for corroboration - There is an acquittal and therefore there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly the presumption of innocence available to the accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. The appeal stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under sections 323, 330, 341, 342, 348 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code based on a private complaint.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Allegations of Assault and Wrongful Confinement
The appeal challenged the acquittal of four accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code related to assault and wrongful confinement. The incident began with the accused threatening the complainant at his residence and then taking him to the D.R.I office without issuing any summons. The complainant alleged physical assault, threats, and forced confession during interrogation. The court analyzed the sequence of events, witness testimonies, and medical certificates to determine the veracity of the allegations. The court noted contradictions in the medical evidence regarding the cause of the complainant's injuries, leading to doubts about the accused's involvement in the alleged assault. Additionally, the court found no evidence of wrongful confinement or restraint by the D.R.I officers during the investigation.

Issue 2: Lack of Corroborative Evidence
The court emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence, especially when the sole witness's testimony is not conclusive. The complainant's credibility was questioned due to discrepancies in his claims, such as the acquisition of gold bars without payment and contradictions in statements. The court highlighted a letter from the D.R.I stating that the alleged gold deal with the complainant was denied by the seller, raising doubts about the complainant's version of events. These circumstances led the court to seek corroboration for the complainant's testimony, which was deemed necessary to establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue 3: Presumption of Innocence and Acquittal
The judgment reiterated the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that presumes the accused innocent until proven guilty. The acquittal of the accused by the trial court reinforced this presumption, indicating a lack of sufficient evidence to establish guilt. The court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing the double presumption in favor of the accused due to the acquittal. The prosecution's failure to prove its case led to the dismissal of the appeal, affirming the trial court's findings and conclusion regarding the insufficiency of evidence to convict the accused.

In conclusion, the detailed analysis of the judgment highlighted the legal scrutiny of the assault and wrongful confinement allegations, the significance of corroborative evidence, and the presumption of innocence in acquittal cases. The court's thorough examination of the evidence and circumstances surrounding the case resulted in the dismissal of the appeal against the acquittal of the accused.