Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Vivek Kumar Birla and Vikas Budhwar, JJ.
State of U.P. – Appellant
versus
Mahfooz Ansari and Ors. – Respondents
Government Appeal No.316 of 2019
Decided on 12.9.2022
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 148, 364, 342, 302 read with Sections 149, 201 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378(3) – Kidnapping, wrongful restraint and murder – Screening of evidence – Common object – Appeal against acquittal – Until and unless judgment under challenge is perverse and there are substantial and compelling reasons followed by miscarriage of justice to be meted by parties, High Court should not in routine manner interfere with judgment of acquittal as accused is possessed with double presumption of innocence – On merits, inconsistency in statement of eye-witness of incident assumes significance particularly when entire prosecution theory has been laid down on foundation of his deposition – There is a delay of more than 24 days in lodging of FIR and reasons of delay have been thoroughly unexplained – There is enormous time gap between point of time when accused and deceased were last seen alive and when deceased is found death – Mandatory procedure so envisaged under Section 65-B (4) of Evidence Act has not been followed – Though merely because prosecution witnesses turned hostile may not ipso facto be a abstract principle of law that prosecution theory stands disbelieved but such situation is to be seen along with other factors – Judgment of acquittal upheld. (Paras 15, 16, 67, 72, 77, 89, 92 and 103)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65-B(4) – Admissibility of electronic evidence – CDR is also one of important factors which along with other factors if pressed into service can surface position of accused into order to determine as to whether he had committed crime or not – However, there is a complete procedure envisaged under Section 65-B(4) of Evidence Act wherein production of certificate has been held to be mandatory with certain exceptions. (Para 86)
Result: Government Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Budhwar, J.—The present appeal purports to be under Section 378(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’), seeking to challenge the judgment and order dated 2.4.2019 passed by IVth Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Pilibhit in S.T. No.297 of 2014, (State of U.P. Vs. Mahfooz Ansari and 4 others), S.T. No.16 of 2015 (State of U.P. Vs. Irshad) and S.T. No.96 of 2015, (State of U.P. Vs. Kalloo Mewati), in Case Crime No.801 of 2014, P.S. Sungarhi, District Pilibhit under Sections 148, 364, 342, 302 read with Sections 149, 201 IPC acquitting the accused respondents, who are 7 in number.
Introductory Facts
2. Essence of the fact which lies in narrow compass as wrapped in prosecution story are that one Jai Prakash s/o Shri Ram Charan Lal r/o Village Gauneri Dan, P.S. Jahanabad, District Pilibhit submitted a written report before Deputy Inspector General of Police Bareilly on 19.5.2004 at 16.30 a.m. with an allegation that he solemnized marriage with Smt. Tabbasum @ Munni d/o Mahmood, r/o Chiriyadeh, P.S. Sungarhi, District Pilibhit on 18.12.2013, as the same was interfaith marriage thus, the accused fraction got furrated as their daughter married the informant, who happens to be of different religion.
3. Occasioning threats to the life, the first informant/complainant claims that he had no option but to prefer proceedings before this Court on writ side being W.P. No.20156 of 2004, Smt. Tabbasum @ Munni and Others Vs. State of U.P. seeking police protection.
4. As per the first informant on 16.4.2014 a positive order was passed in their favour granting civil protection. Prosecution further asserts that Jaiprakash being the informant and the deceased being Smt. Tabbasum @ Munni were living together, however, on the fateful day i.e. 25.4.2014 when the informant was travelling from Bareilly to Pilibhit then at 5.00 in the evening at a place being Laveda, Police Station Hafizganj Bareilly, the accused respondents Mahfooz, Abdul Mazid, Mustkeem, Ayub and Irshad who happened to be the relatives of Smt. Tabbasum @ Munni while exerting pressure forcibly abducted his wife being Smt. Tabbasum @ Munni.
5. According to first informant, he proceeded to police station Hafizganj in order to submit written report but neither the same was taken note of nor any proceedings were conducted in that regard. In fact he tried his level best to search the whereabouts of his missing wife Smt. Tabbasum @ Munni but she could not be traced. Thus, he apprehends that the life of his wife is in danger.
6. It was further alleged that on 17.5.2014, he received a phone call from his wife Smt. Tabbasum @ Munni apprising him that she has been illegally confined in the house of his maternal uncle Irshad Master and he along with others had committed bad act with her and they are planning to murder her. The said call is stated to have been made from the mobile phone no.8273025296.
7. On the basis of the written complaint so lodged by the first informant before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Agra region Agra on 19.5.2014 at 4.30 in the morning, a first information report was lodged. Accordingly, the Circle Officer city by virtue of the order dated 19.5.2014 directed for conduction of investigation in the said matter against the accused herein. The FIR was registered as Case Crime No.801 of 2014 under Sections 364, 342 IPC.
8. Records further reveal that on 20.5.2014 one Tilakram s/o Sunder Lal, r/o Gram Gauhania, P.S. Sungarhi, District Pilibhit lodged a written complaint before the Station House Officer, Sungarhi, District Pilibhit reporting that near the drain in Village Gauhania a dead-body of woman was found and adjacent to her the accessories being slipper, dupatta etc. was also noticed and the resident of village in question identified the girl to be the sister of Mahfooz Ansari being Smt.
Admissibility of electronic evidence – There is a complete procedure envisaged under Section 65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act wherein production of certificate has been held to be mandatory with certai....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt in order to obtain a conviction.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere circumstantial evidence and delayed FIR weaken the case, necessitating independent corroboration.
The appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless the trial court's decision is perverse or unsupported by evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
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....
Provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within knowledge of a person, burden of proving that fact is upon him.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence, which requires stringent adherence to established evidentiary standards....
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
