Back
2002 Supreme(All) 1508
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rakesh Tiwari
SATYA DEO GIN - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 8723 Of 1980
Decided On : 10/11/2002
Anshuman Singh, Ashok Mohiley, M.B.Saxena, S.P.SRIVASTAVA, V.K.SINGH
The judgment established that circumstantial evidence must conclusively establish guilt and exclude any reasonable doubt. It also emphasized the necessity of a prior meeting of minds to establish a common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
RAKESH TIWARI, J. - Quashing of Conviction - Army Act - [Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Army Act] - The court analyzed the circumstantial evidence and the common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It found that the evidence did not conclusively establish the guilt of the petitioner and did not leave room for reasonable doubt. The court also highlighted the lack of forensic examination and the absence of a prior meeting of minds among the accused. The judgment quashed the verdict of the General Court Martial, convicting and sentencing the petitioner to life imprisonment, and ordered the petitioner's release.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was charged with the murders of Havaldar Ram Phal and Sepoy Jagannath Prasad. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy to commit the murders based on circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence did not conclusively establish the guilt of the petitioner and did not leave room for reasonable doubt. It also highlighted the lack of forensic examination and the absence of a prior meeting of minds among the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the presence of a common intention among the accused, and the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of conclusive evidence, the absence of a prior meeting of minds among the accused, and the failure to establish a common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The judgment quashed the verdict of the General Court Martial, convicting and sentencing the petitioner to life imprisonment, and ordered the petitioner's release.
( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
( 2 ) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Stya Deo Girl has prayed for quashing of the judgment and order of conviction and consequential order of awarding sentence of imprisonment of life passed by the General Court Martial and Chief of Army Staff, Annexures-IV and V to the writ petition.
( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner alongwith Isa Nand Dubey and Khem Chand was charged with the offence of committing murders of Havaldar Ram Phal and Sepoy Jagannath Prasad, said to have taken place on 26/1/1974 at about 5. 00 P. M.
( 4 ) THE petitioner was tried by the General Court Martial earlier. The case of the prosecution regarding motive was that on 19/1/1974, the two deceased, namely, Havaldar Ram Phal and Sepoy Jagannath Prasad tried to molest the wife of the petitioner. It is said that co-accused Khem Chand treated Smt. Meera Devi, wife of the petitioner, as his sister. The petitioner and his coaccused Khem Chand became annoyed and entered into a conspiracy to do away with the deceased and for this purpose on 26/1/1974 Khem Chand took a double barrel gun from Naib Subedar Pandey and thereafter the three accused, namely, Ram Chand, Isa Nand Dubey and the petitioner in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of Havaldar Ram Phal and Sepoy Jagannath Prasad near village Bhatagaon by shooting them down.
( 5 ) THE Court of Enquiry constituted according to Army Act conducted trial and recorded evidence of witnesses. All the witnesses named in the complaint showed their ignorance regarding the alleged incident. On completion of trial the Court of Enquiry, found that no prima facie case was made out against the charged accused including the petitioner as no person saw the incident. Only dead bodies were found lying near village Bhatagaon. From the summary of proceedings it appears that all the three accused persons were arrested and taken into custody and thereafter they were taken to the police station. The petitioner was put up for identification in the District Jail Jhansi and was identified by four witnesses, namely, Damru Pd. (P. W. 12), Sewa Ram (P. W. 21), Munna Lal (P. W. 19) and Majjo (P. W. 20 ).
( 6 ) THE General Officer Commanding after going through the evidence given before the Court of Enquiry ordered that General Court Martial can not be ordered as the material against the petitioner was insufficient. He, therefore, refused to grant permission for holding General Court Martial. Thereafter, additional summary evidence was recorded and the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Central Command, Lucknow sanctioned holding of a General Court Martial of the petitioner and his co-accused.
( 7 ) IN the General Court Martial proceedings, 31 witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case and it returned the verdict of guilty.
( 8 ) IT is purely a case of circumstantial evidence. There is absolutely no ocular account of the incident.
( 9 ) THE motive alleged was that the wife of the petitioner was tried to be molested by the deceased.
( 10 ) THE other circumstances set out by prosecution are:1. On 26th January, 1974 accused Khem Chand obtained a double barrel gun belonging to Naib Subedar Pandey. 2. At about 2. 30 P. M. the two accused viz. Havaldar Ram Phal and Sepoy Jagannath Prasad were seen in village Bhatagaon, in the company of the three accused. 3. At about 4. 30 P. M. all the three accused and the two deceased were again seen together. 4. A little later, a sound of gunshot was heard and two of the accused viz. Satya Deo Gin and Khem Chand were seen running away from the scene of incident with a gun. 5. The petitioner admitted in the proceedings of summary of evidence that he had gone to play shikar and that Khem Chand had shot the two deceased. 6. And that the petitioner returned the gun to Naib Subedar Pandey afterwards. (II) The circum
