The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court while allowing an appeal said that in criminal jurisprudence every accused is presumed to be innocent unless the guilt is proved.
The presumption of innocence is a human right. The prosecution may obtain a criminal conviction only when the evidence proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
A Single Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed passed this order while hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by Mohd Nabi @ Munna.
By means of the criminal appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 26.04.2000 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Sessions Trial, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 436 I.P.C for three years rigorous imprisonment.
The prosecution story as narrated in the First Information Report registered as Case under Sections 436 I.P.C at Police Station Kaiserbagh, Lucknow on 23.04.1991 by one Shiv Das alleging therein that his son has been allotted a canteen in the compound of American Library Court where the informant was present on 23.01.1991 alongwith his two workers. At about 08:30 AM, the appellant who is an employee of Civil Court, allegedly came and asked for Suraj (Son of the informant), upon which, the informant told the appellant that he will come to canteen at about 11:00 A.M, hearing this, the appellant allegedly poured kerosene oil over the canteen and set the same on fire, due to which, not only the canteen was burnt but chamber of an advocate was also burnt.
Pursuant to the registration of the First Information Report, the police carried out investigation and submitted a charge sheet against the appellant under Section 436 I.P.C on 17.05.1991. The matter being triable by the court of sessions, was committed to the Sessions Court for trial where charge under section 436 IPC was framed against the appellant, who pleaded not guilty to the aforesaid charge and claimed to be tried.
After having heard the rival submissions of parties, the Trial Court found appellant-accused guilty, therefore, convicted and sentenced him under Section 436 I.P.C for three years rigorous imprisonment.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the appellant-accused has preferred this appeal.
After hearing the argument advanced by the counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that throughout the web of the Criminal Jurisprudence, one golden thread is always seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. This burden of proof on prosecution to prove guilt is also known as presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the latin expression “ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat” (the burden of proof is on one who declares, not to one who denies) is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.
The Court said that,
In the case, almost all the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile. It is based on testimony of hostile prosecution witnesses from which guilt of the accused may be inferred.
Witnesses may be categorized into three distinct categories. They may be wholly reliable. Similarly there may be witnesses who can be considered wholly unreliable. There is no difficulty in placing reliance or disbelieving his evidence when an evidence is wholly reliable or wholly unreliable, but difficulty arises in case of third category i.e where witness is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
The term “hostile witness” does not find a place in Evidence Act 1872. It is a term borrowed from English Law. Though in English Law to allow a party to contradict its own witness was not an acceptable view. The theory of contradicting its own witness was resisted on the ground that party should be permitted to discard or contradict his own witness, which turns unfavorable to party calling him, however, this rigidity of rule was sought to be relaxed by evolving a term “hostile” or “un-favourable witness” in common law.
The Court further said that it feels pain to observe that in our present system of trial, despite having sufficient power to the judge to ask questions to the witnesses in order to find out the truth, most of them do not ask questions to the witnesses to shift the grain from the chaff. Practice of leaving witnesses to the Advocates, when a witness becomes hostile, is not uncommon in the trial Courts. Time and again the Apex Court has reminded that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished, but a Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties, which the Judge has to perform. Therefore, the trial Court must shed their inertia and must intervene in all those cases where intervention is necessary for the ends of justice.
“No proper explanation of injuries on the person of injury has been given. Mere suggestion is not sufficient. Moreover it itself indicates a false case. All the witnesses being close to each other, it is beyond apprehension that instead of naming out the real culprit, they would falsely implicate the accused persons knowing them innocent.
The Court has gone through the impugned judgment and evidence on record. The trial court, relying on the testimony of witnesses, even though who have not supported the prosecution case, has concluded that the accused had burnt the canteen. Looking into the totality of statements of witnesses, the conclusion drawn by the trial court cannot be said to be reasonable.
In this case, the trial court has also failed to consider the fact that the alleged incident is said to have taken place in the court compound at 11:00 A.M. and the prosecution has failed to produce any Advocate or any other staff of court to prove its case. The defence witnesses ought to have been considered by the trial court. Thus, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to establish that appellant in all probability has committed the said offence.
Thus in view of above, after analysis of circumstances of the case in the light of aforesaid settled legal principles, I come to the conclusion that the trial court has erred in passing the impugned order”, the Court observed while allowing the appeal.
“The order dated 26.04.2000 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Sessions Trial, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 436 I.P.C for three years rigorous imprisonment, is set aside and reversed. The appellant, namely, Mohd Nabi @ Munna is acquitted of charge under Section 436 IPC. His personal bond and surety bonds are canceled and sureties are discharged”, the Court ordered.