Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HRISHIKESH ROY, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Ravi Mandal - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 2011
With
Shabbir - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2345 of 2011
Decided On : 18-05-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 and 201 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Murder and disappearance of evidence – Common intention – Life sentence – Prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that deceased was last seen alive in company of accused near the spot at relevant time – In so far as recovery of country made pistol and knife from person of accused at the time of their arrest is concerned, same does not inspire our confidence – Testimony of PWs does not inspire confidence as to sustain conviction – Courts below accepted the same as gospel truth, without testing it on anvil of settled legal principles, thereby resulting in grave miscarriage of justice – Case in hand is a quintessential case where to solve out a blind murder, occurring in a forest in darkness of night, bits and pieces of evidence were collected which warranted a strict scrutiny before basing conviction thereupon – Courts below have failed to properly evaluate and test evidence by applying correct legal principles – Impugned judgment and orders of High Court and Trial Court set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges for which they have been tried and convicted. (Paras 30, 31, 33 and 34)
Facts of the case:
These two appeals are against the judgment and order of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, dated 07.04.2010, dismissing Criminal Appeals Nos.54 and 59 of 2004 filed against the judgment and order of Trial Court dated 28.01.2004, and, thereby, affirming the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants detailed below: (i) life imprisonment under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with one year R.I. under section 201 IPC in Sessions Trial (S.T.) No.93/2002 (State vs. Shabbir Ahmad and Another); (ii) one year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- under section 25 Arms Act to appellant Shabbir in S.T. No.104 of 2002 and (iii) one year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- under section 4/25 of Arms Act to appellant Ravi Mandal in connected S.T. No.105 of 2002 (State vs. Ravi Mandal).
Findings of Court:
Circumstances give rise to a lingering doubt as to whether, on discovery of the dead body in the forest, the accused were implicated at the instance of the police on suspicion rather than on information received from persons conversant with the facts
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Misra, J.
1. These two appeals are against the judgment and order of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital (for short “the High Court”), dated 07.04.2010, dismissing Criminal Appeals Nos.54 and 59 of 2004 filed against the judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court Haldwani, Nainital (for short “the Trial Court”) dated 28.01.2004, and, thereby, affirming the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants detailed below: (i) life imprisonment under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) along with one year R.I. under section 201 IPC in Sessions Trial (S.T.) No.93/2002 (State vs. Shabbir Ahmad and Another); (ii) one year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- under section 25 Arms Act to appellant Shabbir in S.T. No.104 of 2002 (State vs. Shabbir Ahmed); and (iii) one year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- under section 4/25 of Arms Act to appellant Ravi Mandal in connected S.T. No.105 of 2002 (State vs. Ravi Mandal).
Introductory Facts:
2. On 01.11.2001, Man Singh (PW-1), father of Chhotu @ Surjeet (the deceased), on finding his son’s dead body in a forest, 150 meters west of Government Inter College, lodged a first information report (FIR) at P.S. Lalkuan, Haldwani, district Nainital at about 7.30 hrs, alleging therein that, — on 31.10.2001, at about 2100 Hours, the deceased was with his friends Govind and Ravi Bangali (later identified as Ravi Mandal); Govind, a criminal, had been influencing his son to choose a wrong path; therefore, he suspects that these persons have killed his son and concealed his body in the forest. Thereafter, on 10.11.2001, PW-1 gave a written information to the police stating that it was not Govind but Shabbir who along with Ravi and one Mazhar Khan were with the deceased on that fateful night. In this written information, it was alleged that Babloo (PW-7) had misled him to take the name of Govind.
3. During the course of investigation, the police effected arrest of the two accused, namely, the appellants herein, and disclosed recovery of a 12 bore country made pistol with one live cartridge from Shabbir and a knife from Ravi Mandal, giving rise to two separate cases against each of the two accused under the Arms Act.
4. On completion of investigation three charge sheets were laid giving rise to three sessions trials which were connected with each other and decided by a common judgment, which has been affirmed by the High Court.
Prosecution Evidence:
5. To appreciate the arguments advanced in this case, it would be apposite to notice the testimony of the prosecution witnesses in brief. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses, the gist of their testimony is as under :
(i) PW-1 – Man Singh - Informant (father of the deceased)
He is not an eyewitness of the murder. He, however, proved lodging of the FIR on 01.11.2001 and stated that, — on 31.10.2001 in the evening Babloo (PW-7) came to his residence, told him that the deceased, Ravi Bangali and Govind were asking for food and have sent him to fetch food for them; on that request, PW-1’s wife (Urmila Devi - PW-3) cooked food, packed it and gave it to Babloo, who left with the food; next day, he came to know that dead body of his son was lying in the forest; he then visited the place, brought the dead body to Lalkuan Police Station and lodged the report; later, when he came to know that Govind was not with his son, rather it was Shabbir along with others who were there, he gave the second report (Ex. Ka-2) to the police on 10.11.2001.
During cross examination, PW-1 admitted that there were three or four criminal cases against his son (the deceased) wherein, he was on bail.
With regard to the sequence of events on the date of lodging the FIR, PW-1 stated that,— a constable with two men came in the morning to inform him that dead body of his son is lying in the forest; on getting the information he went to that place and brought the body to the police station to lodge the FIR whereafter, the bod
Court cannot accepted evidence as gospel truth without testing it on anvil of settled legal principles.
The need for reliable witness testimonies and corroborating evidence, especially in the absence of independent witnesses, to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Point of law : It is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony
Conviction for murder by unlawful assembly sustainable on reliable sole eyewitness to killing, corroborated by medical evidence and abduction witnesses, despite FIR delay, witness non-examination, an....
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be reliable and corroborated; mere reliance on the last seen theory is insufficient for conviction.
Point of Law : The appellant shall be released from jail forthwith, unless wanted in any other case, subject to compliance of the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the trial c....
Murder – “Last seen” doctrine has limited application, where time lag between time deceased was seen last with accused and time of murder is narrow – Court should not convict an accused only on the b....
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
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
