Vidya Sagar vs State Of U. P. - 1977 Supreme(SC) 106

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1977 Supreme(SC) 106

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, P.K. GOSWAMI AND P.N. SHINGHAL JJ.
Vidya Sagar, Appellant
Versus
State of U.P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 236 of 1971,
D/- 22-2-1977.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Mohan Behari Lal, Advocate for Appellant; Mr. D. P. Uniyal, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate with him), for Respondent.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code – Section 201/ 34/ 302 - Evidence and circumstances – Offence of murder – Injury - Dead body of was examined by and his report been placed on the record appellant was sent for chemical examination and found to be stained with human blood - A was put up against his brother his wife and his son commission of offences under Section 302 Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 read with Section 34, I.P.C. All of them were committed for trial to the Court of Session and were tried by the Second Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge - While prosecution examined Mohan Singh as eye witnesses, and some other witnesses, and relied on some pieces of circumstantial evidence accused merely stated that they had been falsely implicated due to enmity - They did not lead any evidence in their defense – Held, Court also find that High Court did not carefully examine statement of although it had a direct bearing in the allegation against appellant found on post mortem examination that neck of had been completely severed by one stroke and had been cut "clearly - He was not asked whether such a decapitation was possible even with a large knife, and no effort was made to lead satisfactory evidence to prove size of the knife - It is also not without significance that although appellant was taken in the police custody investigating officer was unable to recover the knife with which the murder was alleged to have been committed, or to explain how it was disposed of or destroyed in the mean time. It is not disputed before us that time of the incident and the High Court did not consider whether a boy of that age could severe the head of the deceased by a single clean-cut stroke - It would thus appear that the four pieces of circumstantial evidence on which reliance has been placed by the High Court for upholding the conviction of appellant could not be said to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the murder - Those circumstances do not answer the well-established test that where evidence is circumstantial, it must be consistent with the sole hypothesis that accused is guilty of the crime charged. Moreover, as has been pointed out High Court did not examine the other evidence and circumstances referred to above which had a bearing on the guilt of the appellant - Appeal is therefore allowed, the conviction and the sentence of appellant set aside and he is acquitted of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C - He is in jail and shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case - Before leaving the case it may be mentioned that, as has been stated we have confined the examination of the evidence on the record to the case of appellant and nothing in this judgment should be taken to have any bearing on the appeal of the State Government against the acquittal of accused - That appeal may, perhaps, require examination of the question whether by reason of the concealment of the dead body in the trunk, those two persons could not be convicted under Section 201, even if they were not held guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code - Appeal allowed

Judgment

SHINGHAL, J.:- This appeal and criminal appeal No. 579 of 1976 were ordered to be listed for hearing together. As the respondents in criminal appeal No. 579 of 1976 do not appear to have been arrested in pursuance of the non-bailable warrants which were issued against them, and are not before this Court, we have heard the arguments only in Vidya Sagars appeal No. 236 of 1971 and shall examine the evidence which bears on it.

2. The case arose out of first information report Ex. Ka 1 lodged by Mohan Singh P.W. 1 at 6.40 p.m., at police station Lar situated at a distance of about a mile from Lar town where the incident is alleged to have taken place at about 4 p.m. on July 6, 1968. Vinod Kumar alias Jhabar was a poor boy aged about 12 years. He lived in village Lar, where the accused also used to live. Vinod Kumar is said to have been employed by Kapil Deo, (accused), some 4 or 5 days before the incident, to work at his house. He therefore lived in his employers house and took his meals there. It has been alleged that some boys of the locality where Kapil Deo used to live with his wife Smt. Sheo Kumari (accused), his brother Ramapati (accused), and his son Vidya Sagar (accused) were playing near their house. Kapil Deo and Ramapati came to their house at about 4 p.m. They scolded the boys for playing there. They took away appellant Vidya Sagar and Vinod Kumar inside the house and asked the other boys to go away. The other boys including Mohan Singh P.W. 1, Hridyanand P.W.2 and Akhilanand P.W. 3, stopped playing for a while, but resumed the play after Kapil Deo, Ramapati, Vinod Kumar and Vidya Sagar went inside the house. While playing, they heard the cry of Vinod Kumar. They climbed the jangla of the house of the accused and saw what was happening inside it. A door of another room inside the house was open, and, they saw that while Kapil Deo and Ramapati were holding Vinod Kumar against the wall of that room, appellant Vidya Sagar was cutting his throat with a big knife. The boys raised an alarm. Appellant Vidya Sagar thereafter came out from the northern door of the house wearing an underwear, with a blood-stained knife in his hand, and ran away. Smt. Sheo Kumari closed the doors of the room and the window. In the mean time some people assembled outside the house and they and Mohan Singh P.W. 1, Hridyanand P.W. 2 and Akhilanand P.W. 3 ran after Vidya Sagar, but could not catch him. Mohan Singh P.W. 1 then went and lodged the first information report (Ex. Ka 1) at police station Lar as aforesaid. Sub-Inspector Markandey Singh P.W. 11 registered a case and took up the investigation. He found that some persons had collected outside the house of the accused and were making inquiries from Kapil Deo and Ramapati. Markandey Singh also made inquiries and it is alleged that Kapil Deo and Ramapati ultimately pointed out the trunk in which the dead body of Vinod Kumar was found in a gunny bag in a room in their house. A blood-stained pyajama of Vidya Sagar is also alleged to have been found inside the trunk and it appeared to Markandey Singh that some portions of the house had been freshly washed to remove the blood-stains. The dead body of Vinod Kumar was examined by Dr. A.B. Das Gupta and his report Ex. Ka. 17 has been placed on the record. The pyajama of the appellant was sent for chemical examination and found to be stained with human blood. A challan was put up against Kapil Deo, his brother Ramapati, his wife Smt. Sheo Kumari and his son Vidya Sagar for the commission of offences under Section 302, Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 read with Section 34, I.P.C. All of them were committed for trial to the Court of Session, and were tried by the Second Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge of Deoria. While the prosecution examined Mohan Singh P.W. 1, Hridyanand P.W. 2 and Akhilanand P.W. 3 as eye witnesses, and Saklu Gond P.W. 4 and some other witnesses, and relied on some pieces of circumstantial evidence, the accused

Click Here to Read the rest of this document