Back
2008(3) Crimes 640 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
K.S. Rakhra and R.K. Rastogi, JJ
Daya Shankar and Others—Appellants
versus
State of U.P.—Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2385 of 1982
Decided on 19.11.2007
For the Appellants:Mr. A.D. Giri, Mr. P.N. Misra, Mr. A.K. Raghore, Mr. Apul Misra & Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, AGA.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302/34 and 201/34—Deceased left his house for shop of deceased to buy betel leaves and did not return—FIR for offence under Section 364 was registered—Body of deceased was found in field after three days which was in highly decomposed condition and case of death could not be ascertained—Conviction recorded on circumstantial evidence —Appeal—Notice attributed by prosecution was that accused suspected deceased involved in murder of brother-in-law of one of the accused—Motive however was not proved by any evidence—Extra judicial confession did not inspire confidence—Appellant deserved to be given benefit of doubt and deserved to be acquitted. (Para 24 to 31)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
-
The case involves an appeal against a conviction for murder and related offenses, based primarily on circumstantial evidence (!) (!) .
-
The prosecution's case was built on several circumstantial pieces of evidence, including eyewitness accounts, the discovery of the deceased's body, and alleged confessions by the accused (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
The evidence of motive was related to previous inimical relations and suspicion that the deceased had murdered a relative of one of the accused, but the prosecution's proof of motive was weak and not conclusively established (!) (!) .
-
Witness testimony included observations of the accused carrying a bag, and statements that the accused had dragged the deceased into a house, but these were challenged on grounds of credibility and natural conduct (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
An extrajudicial confession was presented, but its authenticity and confidence-inspiring nature were questioned, especially since it was not corroborated by other witnesses and appeared unnatural (!) (!) (!) .
-
The post-mortem examination revealed decomposition, with the cause of death not conclusively determined due to the condition of the body, and the viscera report was not produced, raising doubts about the evidence of homicidal death (!) (!) .
-
The appellate court found that the evidence did not establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to prove the accused's involvement in the murder (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that the absence of direct evidence, the questionable credibility of the circumstantial evidence, and the lack of proof of homicidal death warranted the acquittal of the accused (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
The conviction and sentences were set aside, and the accused were acquitted of all charges. Their bail was canceled, and they were not required to surrender (!) (!) .
-
The judgment underscores the importance of proof beyond reasonable doubt and the principle that suspicion alone is insufficient for conviction in criminal cases.
JUDGMENT
R. K. Rastogi, J.—This is an appeal by Daya Shanker, Sarju Prasad, Bhagwati @ Nachkau and Ayodhya against judgment and order dated 2.9.1982 passed by Sri Dinesh Chandra, then IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No.78 of 1982, State v. Daya Shanker and others, under Sections 302/34 and 20l/34 IPC of police station Karchhana District Allahabad.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 8.10.1980 at about 8.30 a.m. Chhotey Lal Pandey lodged FIR at police station Karchhana District Allahabad with these allegations that he is resident of village Tikri police station Karchhana District Allahabad. Accused Bhagawati, Ayodhya and Kanhaiya Lal had enmity with his brother Mani Lal. On 7.10.1980 Mani Lal had gone to the shop of Bhagawati to take betel leaves. He left that place at 10 a.m. but did not return back to his house upto evening. Then Chhotey Lal Pandey etc. started to search him but no trace of Mani Lal was found, hence, Chhotey Lal suspected that aforesaid Bhagawati Parsed etc. might have confined Mani Lal somewhere with an intention to kill him and prayed that necessary action should be taken in the matter.
3. On the basis of the above report, the police registered the above case against the said three persons under Section 364, IPC dead body of Mani Lal was found in the field of Satya Narain on 9.10.1980 at 2.00 p.m. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem examination was conducted on 10.10.1980 at 4.20 p.m. and in the opinion of the doctor, death had taken place about 3-4 days ago and the entire body had been decomposed, and eyes, ears, nose, lips and tongue of the body were missing. There were maggots and insects in the body and cause of death could not be ascertained due to decomposition, hence, viscera was preserved. However, it is not clear whether viscera was sent for chemical examination or not, and no viscera report has been produced by the prosecution.
4. After recovery of the dead body the case was converted under Section 302/201, IPC and the police after completion of the investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the above named accused Bhagawati Prasad and Ayodhya Prasad, named in the FIR and against Daya Shanker and Sarju Prasad, whose names had come into light during investigation. No charge-sheet was submitted against Kanhaiya Lal, named in the FIR.
5. All the above named four accused persons were charged under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC. They have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution produced Onkar Nath Pandey as PW 1. His statement was recorded on 4.8.1982 and he stated that about 21-22 months ago, he had gone to the brining machine shop of Ram Kishan at village Tikri and was returning back to his village Gidhora at about 7-8 p.m., and when he reached near the bridge towards west of Tikri he saw the accused Nachkau @ Bhagwati, Daya Shanker, Ayodhya and Sarju Prasad carrying a bag in their hands. He enquired from them about the contents of the bag and then Nachkau told that there was manure in that bag, then he proceeded to his house but on the third day he came to know that the dead body of Mani Lal was found near that place, then he visited that place and upon an inquiry made by the Investigation Officer he had told that he had seen all the four accused persons carrying the bag with them.
7. Vishwanath was examined as PW2. He stated that 21-22 months ago at about 10.00 a.m. he was coming from village Barsabal to his village Gidhora and he reached village Tikri at 10.00 a.m. Mustaq Ahmad alias Khatkhat was accompanying him. He passed in front of the house of Chhotey Lal Pandey and saw that all the four accused persons were dragging Mani Lal into the house of Sarju Prasad. Thereafter he came to know that Mani Lal alias Mani Shanker had disappeared.
8. Lala Singh alias Rajeshwari Prasad was examined as PW3. He stated that 21-22 months ago at about 10.30 a.m. witness Shashi Singh came to his house and told him that
