The prosecution must provide sufficient evidence to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, and the court may apply Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to assess the sufficiency of evidence.

ORDER :

Leave granted in SLP(Crl.)No. 284 of 2014.

2. These four appeals are filed by four persons who are convicted for committing the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). The Trial Court, on conviction, awarded them sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. By the impugned judgment of the High Court, the said conviction and sentence has been maintained resulting in dismissal of the appeal which was filed by these four accused persons challenging the verdict of the Sessions Judge. We may state at this stage itself that in all five persons were arrayed as accused persons in the said case. However, one accused person was acquitted by the Trial Court and against that acquittal, no appeal was filed by the State and, therefore, his acquittal became final at the stage of trial itself. As per the prosecution, it is a case of custodial death wherein one Radhey Shyam Darji along with two other persons, who was wanted in a theft case, was beaten in the Police Station and tortured by these accused persons who are all police officials. As a result of the said beating, Radhey Shyam Darji succumbed to the injuries. It is also the case of the prosecution that after the death of Radhey Shyam Darji, his body was burnt/cremated by these accused persons and, thus, they also committed offence under Section 201 of the IPC. The entire case is based upon the allegations of the custodial and tortured death of that person who is named Radhey Shyam Darji. The case surfaced on the complaint filed by one Shri Kalu Ram Rawat, the then Circle Officer, Bnawani Mandi with the Police Station Gangdhar. As per that, he had received a complaint to the effect that the then SHO,Gangdhar along with his five police officials has illegally detained and beaten three persons, namely, Radhey Shyam, Balu and Kalu for interrogation for an offence of theft and Radhey Shyam Darji died during the intervening night of 6th/7th May, 1999 at about 3.00 a.m at the Police Station itself. His dead body was burnt at an unknown place on the same night. The matter was investigated and the prosecution found during the investigation that the aforesaid three persons, namely, Radhey Shyam Darji s/o Ram Lal r/o Shahajahanpur, M.P., Balu and Lalu were arrested by the police in relation to some other case at Shahajahanpur and were granted bail therein on 05.05.1999. Since they were wanted in some other case which was registered at Police Station, Gangdhar,SHO Raju Singh of Gangdhar Police Station had deputed three constables, namely, Dilip Singh, Tola Ram and Rajesh to bring those suspects. These three persons had gone to Shahajahanpur and arrested the said three persons and brought them to Police Station, Gangdhar. We have already pointed out above that Radhey Shyam Darji was beaten and tortured by the accused persons resulting into his death. It may be mentioned at this stage that from the very beginning, the accused persons/appellants herein had questioned the evidence which was led by the prosecution against them and it was highlighted by these appellants that the very identity of Radhey Shyam Darji s/o Ram Lal r/o Shahajahanpur, M.P. had not been established by the prosecution and, therefore, the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the case of murder of Radhey Shyam Darji s/o Ram Lal r/o Shahajahanpur, M.P. against the accused persons. In this behalf, it was pointed out that the documents which were produced by the prosecution in the case in Shahajahanpur, M.P., as per which Radhey Shyam Darji, Balu and Kalu were released on bail, did not pertain to Radhey Shyam Darji and in fact, the person who was released on bail in the said case was altogether a different person whose name was Radhey Shyam Chamar s/o Hira Lal r/o Barabali, Rajasthan. This anomaly which was pointed out by the defence has not been accepted by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court on the ground that as per the provisions of Section 106