Mumbai, December 20: Wherever Rajan Muker is right now, he better not come to know about this judgement passed in his absence, for it could taint his jolly memories of seven happy years spent in prison.
Back in 2002, Muker had been convicted by the trial court for a robbery of Rs445. He was released on November 17, 2008, after he served out his full sentence. A year after his release, on December 4, 2009, the High Court has ruled that Muker was innocent. What’s more, Muker doesn’t know about it and perhaps it would make no difference to him even if he did, for what use is this knowledge now?
Muker and another accused, Chandu Chauhan were arrested on March 8, 2002. Babulal Shaikh, the complainant in the case, had stated that he was accosted by the accused at GTB Nagar railway station and they snatched Rs200 from his pocket on March 6. Shaikh also told the police that, on the same day, Manirule Gayan, another resident of the area, had also been robbed by the accused of Rs225.
The police recorded Gayan’s statements too. On March 7, when the two accused were detained in the police station in connection with some other offence, another complainant, Suhas Kamble, landed up and informed the police that the two accused had robbed him of Rs20 on March 5. On March 21, 2002, an identification parade was conducted and the two accused were identified by the prosecution witnesses.
Strangely, at the time of the trial, the prosecution did not examine Shaikh and Gayan.
Although police sub-inspector Gopal Thakur, who had recorded the First Information Report (FIR) was examined, the high court in its order stated, “It is settled position of law that FIR itself is not substantive evidence, though it can be used for the purpose of corroboration if it is lodged immediately after the incident. As Shaikh himself
was not examined, it cannot be said that the report and particularly its contents are proved.”
Kamble’s testimony, the court said, was not reliable as he had seen the accused prior to the identification parade. Kamble had also said that Muker had brandished a knife at the time of robbing Rs20 from him, but no knife was recovered from Muker.
Given that two of the complainants were not examined by the prosecution and the testimony of the third was not reliable, the court concluded that the prosecution had “utterly failed” to prove the charge of robbery.
Muker could not benefit from the order of his release as he had stayed in prison for all the seven years that the sessions court had handed out to him. Justice JH Bhatia stated at the end of his 8-page order, “As the accused has been already released on November 17, 2008 after undergoing complete sentence awarded by the trial court, no order needs to be passed for his release now.”
–Agencies–