Back
Supreme Court of India
P. SATHASIVAM & RANJAN GOGOI ,JJ.
State of U.P.
Versus
Munesh
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 180 OF 2007
Decided On : 12-10-2012
Facts of the Case :
A Respondent accused was prosecuted herein in the instant case for committing rape on deceased and thereafter causing her death by strangulating her. Trial Court convicted accused respondent for said offences . However High Court on appeal acquitted respondent accused.
B. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
A.The Supreme Court held that even though there were some contradictions between statements made under Section 161 of Crpc and evidence of two independent eye-witnesses, PW-2 and PW-3 before court , contradictions were not much and same had not affected the prosecution story. Evidence of both eye-witnesses, PWs 2 and 3 held not only reliable but they were independent witnesses. In the absence of any previous enmity with accused, the question of falsely implicating accused not arose.
B. Prosecution story was fully corroborated with medical evidence on record.Delay in lodging Fir was properly explained. Although details as spoken to by PWs 1, 2 and 3 were not mentioned in FIR, it was rightly observed by trial Court, FIR is not an encyclopedia. It is just an intimation of the occurrence of an incident and it need not contain all the facts related to the said incident.
C. The analysis and the ultimate conclusion of the High Court was contrary to the acceptable and reliable material placed by the prosecution . Since Prosecution established both charges under Sections 376 and 302 of IPC, impugned order of High Court was set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed
Judgment :-
P. Sathasivam, J.
1) This appeal is filed by the State of U.P. against the final judgment and order dated 16.10.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 737 of 2003 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein and acquitted him of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and set aside the judgment and order dated 15.02.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Bulandshahar in Sessions Case No. 748 of 2002.
2) Prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows:
(a) On 05.03.2002, at about 04.30 p.m., Roshni (the deceased), aged about 11 years, had gone alone from her house in Kalander Garhi, PS Khurja Nagar, Bulandshahar, U.P. to prepare cow-dung cakes in the cremation ground of Jatavs’ and while she was doing her work, the respondent-accused forcibly took her in the wheat field of one Jalil Khadar with bad intentions. She raised cries and on hearing the same, Madanlal (PW-2) and Suresh Chandra (PW-3), who were passing through at a short distance, came to the said field and saw that the respondent-accused was strangulating her with a Dupatta. On seeing them, the respondent-accused ran away and when they tried to chase him, he could not be caught. When they returned back, Roshni was seen lying dead at the site in naked condition. Both of them informed Kanchhi Lal (PW-1), the father of the deceased-the complainant about the said incident and at 11.05 p.m., PW-1 lodged an F.I.R. being Crime No. 66 of 2002 at Police outpost Khurja Junction, District Bulandshahar and a case under Sections 376, 302 and 511 of IPC was registered against the appellant.
(b) After investigation, Kshetrapal Singh, S.I. (PW-7) arrested the accused on 14.03.2002. After filing of the charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered as Sessions Case No. 748 of 2002.
(c) The Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act) Bulandshahar, by judgment dated 15.02.2003, convicted the respondent-accused and sentenced him to death under Section 302 of IPC and to imprisonment for life under Section 376 of IPC.
(d) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondent-accused preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 737 of 2003 before the High Court. For confirmation of death sentence of the accused, Capital Sentence Reference No.7 of 2003 was also filed which was heard along with the appeal filed by the accused. The High Court, by impugned judgment dated 16.10.2003, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-accused and acquitted him of all the charges and also rejected the Capital Sentence Reference.
(e) Against the order of acquittal passed by the High Court, the State has filed this appeal by way of special leave.
3) Heard Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learned senior counsel for the appellant-State and Mr. G.S. Mani, learned counsel for the respondent-accused.
4) Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of U.P. submitted as under:-
(a) the High Court has committed an error by disbelieving the statement of two independent eye-witnesses, namely, Madanlal (PW-2) and Suresh Chandra (PW-3) merely on the ground that there are some contradictions between the statements made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) and in their evidence before the court;
(b) the High Court has failed to appreciate the vital facts that these two statements i.e. statement before the I.O. and the statement before the Court were made after some interval and there is bound to be some variance in the statements. However, the omission in the statement is not fatal to the prosecution case;
(c) the High Court was not correct in holding that there is delay in lodging of the FIR. Even if there is delay, it has been properly explained by the complainant - PW-1, father of the deceased; and
(d) Since the prosecution story is fully corroborated wi
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
