Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan vs The State Of Gujarat

This information given by the complainant was recorded by an entry made in the police diary. Thereafter, formal complaint was registered on 14th February 2001. In this complaint, Paramhansh (PW-1) had pointed out that initially Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan, Appellant/Accused No.1, had joined the search but thereafter he had suddenly vanished. After about four days, the Appellant No.1 Criminal Appeal Nos.333-334 of 2017 Page 2 of 16 had made a call to the complainant and disclosed that he was in Vapi. The complainant got suspicious and thereupon had sent his brother-in-law Sadhusharan Harinandan Yadav (PW-9) and two other relatives Sudarshan and Premchand Yadav to Vapi to bring Appellant No. 1 back. Upon returning, Appellant No. 1 is alleged to have made an extra-judicial confession before about 50 people near Paramhansh’s (PW-1) house. Appellant No. 1 had confessed that he had kidnapped Arjun at the behest of Ramkeval Mutur Yadav, Accused No. 5, who had animosity and grievance against the complainant. Appellant No. 1 had made Arjun sit on his bicycle and had taken him to the railway station, where he was handed over to Ram Ashish and Shivnath, Appellant/Accused Nos. 2 and

4. After the alleged extra-judicial confession, the complainant had sent his brother-in-law, Sadhusharan (PW-9), again to Vapi along with one Jugeswar to search for Appellant Nos. 2 and 3. They had thereupon met Sanjay at Vapi who had informed that Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were residing at his home. Thereupon Jugeswar informed the complainant who in turn conveyed this Criminal Appeal Nos.333-334 of 2017 Page 3 of 16 information to police. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were thereafter arrested by the police from the house of Sanjay.

Criminal Appeal Nos.333-334 of 2017 Page 11 of 16

21. The trial court in our opinion had therefore rightly acquitted all the accused after recording cogent reasons and good grounds. Criminal Appeal Nos.333-334 of 2017 Page 14 of 16 Ramkeval Mutur Yadav, Accused No. 5, was not convicted by the appellate court. Ajay @ Pradip Hiralal Gupta, Appellant No. 4 who has been convicted by the appellate court has not been assigned any role in the entire incident. Needless to state, the High Court should not have interfered with the acquittals given by the trial court, unless the acquittals were vitiated by manifest illegality or such a conclusion “could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse”.7 This Court has time and again held that where an appellate court is reversing a trial court’s order of acquittal, it should give proper weight and consideration to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, and to the principle that such a presumption stands “reinforced, reaffirmed, and strengthened by the trial court” 8. Given the inherent inconsistencies and incongruities in the evidence in the present case, the alleged actions of the appellants have not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

22. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the appeals and set aside the conviction and sentences of the appellants in the __________________________________________ 7 Tota Singh v. State of Punjab (1987) 2 SCC 529 8 Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 Criminal Appeal Nos.333-334 of 2017 Page 15 of 16 charge-sheet arising from FIR No. 55/2001. The appellants are accordingly directed to be released from custody, unless they are required to be detained in any other case in accordance with law.

DECEMBER 13, 2019.

Criminal Appeal Nos.333-334 of 2017 Page 16 of 16