Back
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Munna Kumar Upadhyaya @ Munna Upadhyaya
Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh Through Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh
Crl. A. No. 1316 of 2008
Decided On: 08.05.2012
(2011) 3 SCC 85 – Relied upon
1991 Supp. (1) SCC 39 – Distinguished
(b) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Extra Confessional statement – High Court rejecting the entire extra confessional statements – It ought to have rejected only that part which is inadmissible in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 – Rest ought to have relied upon – For example history given to doctor was relevant piece of evidence – Extra confessional statement if true and made voluntarily in a fit state of mind may be accepted (Para 33, 34, 42)
1995 Supp. (4) SCC 259; (1997) 8 SCC 158; (1998) 6 SCC 108; (2003) 8 SCC 180; (2007) 12 SCC 230; (2010) 10 SCC 604; ,(2009) 5 SCC 740; (2011) 11 SCC 754; (2011) 10 SCC 165 – Relied upon
(c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 9 – TI Parade – It is always appropriate to hold identification parade at the earliest – Delay in holding – Not always fatal to prosecution case – More so when the witnesses identified the accused in the court. (Para 45, 46, 47)
(2010) 6 SCC 1 – Relied upon
(1999) 8 SCC 428 – Distinguished
(d) Criminal Trial – Circumstantial evidence – The chain of circumstances must be complete – Prosecution must prove each circumstance – All evidence must point to the guilt of the accused and none else – Instantly prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 48)
(2010) 8 SCC 249; (2008) 16 SCC 328 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Accused no. 1 was working as office peon and worked at residence of the Chief Track Engineer, South Central Railway. His wife was a disciplinarian and this irritated the accused no. 1. During Dashrara A1 decided to wipe out the entire family.
He, conspired with other four accused and with their help, killed the entire family of four persons and putting the dead bodies and stained cloths etc. in a car set the car ablaze.
The court of sessions charged and convicted the accused persons as uynder:
Against - Al Under Sections 302, 201, 435, 380 or alternatively Under Section 411 IPC and Under Section 25(1)(a) and 27 of Arms Act.
Against - A2 Under Section 302, 302 R/w 34, 201, 435, 380 or alternatively 411, IPC.
Against - A3 Under Section 302, 380 or alternatively 411 IIPC and 25(1)(a) and 27 of Arms Act.
Against - A4 Under Section 302, 302 R/w 34, 201, 380 or alternatively Under Section 411 IPC.
Against - A5 Under Section 201, 380 or alternatively Under Section 411 IPC.
A1 was awarded death sentence, A2 was awarded imprisonment for life, A3, A4 and A5 were awarded RI for 3 years.
High Court confirmed the conviction of A1, A2 and A5 but acquitted A3 and A4. It also commuted death sentence of A1 to life imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
The legal document emphasizes several important principles regarding criminal evidence and procedure. Firstly, extra confessional statements made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind may be admissible and can be relied upon unless they are explicitly inadmissible under specific legal provisions. It is recognized that such statements, if true and voluntary, can contribute significantly to establishing guilt, especially when corroborated by other evidence (!) (!) (!) .
Secondly, the timing and manner of identification procedures, such as test identification parades, are crucial. While delays in conducting these parades are not automatically fatal to the prosecution's case, they should be conducted as early as possible to avoid prejudice. The primary purpose of these procedures is to test the witnesses' memory and strengthen the reliability of their in-court identification. Even if a parade is delayed, identification evidence can still be considered valid, especially when witnesses have identified the accused in court (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Thirdly, in cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that collectively point to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances must be fully proved, consistent only with the guilt hypothesis, conclusive, and capable of excluding all other hypotheses of innocence. When these conditions are met, the evidence can be sufficient for conviction even in the absence of eyewitness testimony (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the document highlights that the failure to hold a test identification parade or delays in its execution do not necessarily invalidate the evidence of identification, provided that the witnesses' testimony in court remains credible and consistent. The substantive evidence in criminal cases primarily consists of the sworn testimony of witnesses, supported by corroborative material such as forensic reports, recoveries of incriminating articles, and physical evidence like fingerprints (!) (!) (!) .
Lastly, statements made by the accused during their trial under the provisions allowing for their explanation are important. The court should specifically question the accused about incriminating evidence, and their responses can be used to assess credibility. False or incorrect answers during such proceedings can lead to adverse inferences, which may support the case against them. The absence of a proper explanation or the giving of false answers by the accused can be considered as incriminating circumstances, further strengthening the prosecution's case (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Overall, the document underscores the importance of a comprehensive, cautious, and corroborated approach to evaluating evidence in criminal trials, particularly those based on circumstantial evidence, and emphasizes procedural adherence to ensure fairness and reliability.
JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 28th March, 2007, confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar on 22nd January, 2007.
Facts in Brief
2. One Shri Baldevraj Seth was working as Chief Track Engineer, South Central Railway. He was living in Bungalow No. 100, Railways Officer's Colony, South Lalaguda of Secunderabad, the official residence allotted to him along with his family members, i.e., his wife, Prabha Seth, son, Master Rishab Seth and daughter Kanika Seth. Accused Chandra Bhushan Upadhyay (Accused No. 1) was working as office peon in South Central Railways, Secunderabad and was attached to the bungalow of Shri Baldevraj Seth for the last 7 years. Accused No. 1 was married in the year 1997 and was residing in the servant quarters of the said bungalow. In fact, he had been given two servant quarters. Accused No. 1 was arrogant, evasive and in the habit of revolting against Smt. Prabha Seth who was a strict person and demanded better performance of duties by accused No. 1. The wife of accused No. 1, on the occasion of dussehra festival, went to her native place in Bihar, to which all the accused belong. After her departure, accused No. 1 became more arrogant. Nearly a week before the occurrence, Smt. Prabha Seth had scolded accused No. 1 for his shabby looks and had asked him to have a haircut. This aggravated the grudge of accused No. 1 towards her. On the very next day, accused No. 1 met his elder brother's son, Munna Kumar Upadhyay (Accused No. 2), his brother-in-law, Maheshwar Upadhyay (Accused No. 4) and their friend, Monu Singh (Accused No. 3). As already noticed, all of them belong to the same village in the State of Bihar. Accused No. 3 was working in Bharat Steels. Because of the serious grudge of accused No. 1 towards Smt. Prabha Seth, they all planned to kill the entire family of Shri Baldevraj Seth and to decamp with the gold ornaments, etc.
3. In furtherance to their plan, accused No. 1 is stated to have purchased two knives from a road side hawker in the market. He also told Accused Nos. 2 to 4 to come to the bungalow in the morning of the next Monday to execute their plan. On 17th March, 2003, at about 9.30 a.m., Baldevraj Seth left for his office. At about 10 a.m., accused No. 2 to 4 came to the entrance of the bungalow, not permitting their entry from the main gate, accused No. 1 took them to the bathroom in the back varandah and closed the door. Accused No. 1 closed all the doors from inside. He did not permit the washerwoman to come inside the house and gave her clothes from outside. When the maid servants who used to come to the house everyday to clean the house, came at their respective times, they were sent back by accused No. 1 on the pretext that Smt. Prabha Seth wanted the house to be cleaned with acid and phenyl and therefore, they should come on another day. A carpenter, Janagama Maheshwar, PW23 had also come to the premises for fixing some poster beds. However, accused No. 1 did not permit him to come into the house and when the carpenter insisted on completing the work, accused No. 1 told him that Smt. Prabha Seth was not well and does not want to be disturbed. At about 10.30 a.m., Smt. Prabha Seth went into the bathroom. ACCUSED No. 1 went to the room of Master Rishab, who was watching the television, and on the pretext of showing him something, called him to another bathroom. When Rishab reached the bathroom, accused Nos. 2 to 4 held the boy while accused No. 1 cut his throat, as a result of which he died instantaneously. His body was kept in the bathroom itself. Thereafter when Smt. Prabha Seth came out of the bathroom, accused No. 1 immediately attacked her and accused No. 3, Monu Singh, opened fire on her with a countrymade pistol. When she was trying to get free from the grip of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
