Back
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Alok Kumar Verma, JJ.
Dulal Ali S/o Anwar Ali @ Nabbu Ali – Appellant
versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.178 of 2014
Decided on 11.10.2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 394, 302 and 411 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Murder and robbery – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – No eyewitness has been examined – In a case based on entirely circumstantial evidence, it is appropriate for prosecution to conclusively establish each circumstance – It is only the fact that is discovered is admissible – It is always necessary that there should be some kind of documents, it may be in seizure itself on which Investigating Officer should record exact information given by accused in custody which could have led to court to go to appreciate exact fact or information that was given by accused in custody and that led to discovery of fact – In this case, there is no such record – Exact information or exact opinion given by Scientific Officer of FSL has not been put to accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. – Chain of circumstances has not been conclusively established – Since appellants are in custody for about 14 years, benefit of doubts should be given to them instead of remanding the matter for patching of lacunae committed by Trial Judge – Judgment of conviction and sentence set aside and appellant acquitted. (Paras 8, 9, 12 to 16)
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.—Five persons, namely, Dulal Ali, Mobin S/o Babu, Mobin S/o Yamin, Sagir Ahmad and Virendra Pal were charge-sheeted by the Investigating Officer of Kashipur Police Station, District Udham Singh Nagar for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 394, 302 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Penal Code” 1860, for brevity) in Case Crime/FIR No. 324 of 2008. Out of the above five persons Mobin S/o Yamin was found to be a juvenile. His case was taken up by the Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar. Rest of the four accused persons faced the trial. Mobin S/o Babu was acquitted of all charges by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur. Similarly, Virendra Pal was acquitted of the charges under Sections 394 and 302 of the Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Kashipur, but he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Penal Code. The rest two accused persons, i.e., Sagir Ahamad and Dulal Ali were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offence under Sections 394, 302 and 411 and each of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code; they have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment each for 10 years under section 394 of the Penal Code and to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to undergo six months additional rigorous imprisonment. They have also been sentenced to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment each with fine and default stipulation for the offence under Section 411 of the Penal Code, by the learned Trial Court. The appellants have been so convicted under the Sessions Trial No. 252 of 2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur vide judgement dated 11.10.2014 and have been sentenced, as above.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 23.06.2008, at 6:15 A.M., Mr. K. C. Singh Baba, a Member of Parliament representing Nainital constituency filed a written report in the Kashipur Police Station to the effect that his Secretary Shri Ravi Shankar, has been missing since 22.06.2008 at about 9:00 PM. The said Ravi Shankar was carrying a mobile no. 9412088333, but the said mobile was found to be switched off. He was also having a Heero Honda Motor Cycle (C. D. Dawn numbered as U.A.06F-5985). Ravi Shanker had gone to meet Mr. Shri Joga Singh Chheena and was returning after meeting him and, thereafter, he has gone missing.
3. On the basis of the said report, on 23.06.2008, at about 6:15 AM, a criminal case was initiated for the offence under Section 365 of the Penal Code. On that night itself, the dead body of the deceased was found. As the motorcycle as well as the other belongings of the deceased were still missing and the deceased was found to have sustained injuries with sharp edged weapon, the case was turned into Sections 394 and 302 of the Pena Code. On 10.07.2008, Police received information that the accused persons were standing at Dhelapur. The Police apprehended the accused persons. On their indication ((fu”kkunsgh)), the weapons of the offence, the papers of the motorcycle as well as one diary belonging to the deceased was recovered. At the instance of Sagir Ahmad, the motorcycle was recovered and seized from the home of one of the accused Virendra Pal. The other documentations along with the certain papers like, letterhead of the informant were discovered from the house of the said Virendra Pal. Thus, a charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 394, 302 and 411 of the Penal Code and the accused persons faced the trial.
4. Accused Dulal Ali and Sagir Ahamd took the plea that they have falsely been implicated and the witnesses are deposing falsehood against them.
5. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. PW1 K. C. Singh Baba is the complainant. PW2 Joga Singh is the person, whom the deceased
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive establishment of each circumstance in a case based on circumstantial evidence, as governed by Section 27 of the Evid....
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and cogent link that rules out reasonable doubt about innocence.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction; reasonable doubts justify acquittal.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain pointing to the guilt of the accused, with no plausible alternative explanations.
Another important aspect to be considered in a case resting on circumstantial evidence is the lapse of time between the point when the accused and deceased were seen together and when the deceased is....
Criminal Law - Offence of Murder - Conviction Set aside - Benefit of Doubt given to appellant - Prosecution has failed to establish chain of circumstances which is consistent with single hypothesis t....
Point of Law : Offence of Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Prosecution is required not only to prove circumstances but also to complete chain of circumstances on basis of which guilt of accused can....
The prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence for a conviction; mere conjecture is insufficient.
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
