1994 Supreme(All) 370
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DEV KANT TRIVEDI, R. K. AGRAWAL
BABOO RAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 498 Of 1993
Decided On : 04/23/1994
N.MOHAN KRISHNA
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroboration of extra judicial confessions and the need to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:
Extra Judicial Confession - Murder - Section 302/149 I. P. C. - 23, 24, 25, 27 of the Evidence Act - The court examined the evidence in the case and found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The alleged extra judicial confession and recovery of articles were found to be doubtful and lacked corroboration. The court acquitted the accused based on the lack of conclusive evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for an offence under Section 302/149 I. P. C. for the murder of his father, mother, and brother. The case was based on circumstantial evidence and an alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The alleged extra judicial confession and recovery of articles were found to be doubtful and lacked corroboration. As a result, the accused was acquitted.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt based on the circumstantial evidence and the alleged extra judicial confession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for corroboration of extra judicial confessions and the importance of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It also highlighted the caution required in appreciating circumstantial evidence and the need to consider alternative inferences in favor of the accused.
Final Decision: The accused was acquitted based on the lack of conclusive evidence presented by the prosecution.
( 1 ) ON 23-4-1994 we had allowed both the appeals and had rejected the reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki for confirming the death sentence, and had passed the following orders :"for the reasons to be recorded later on, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge is set aside and the reference made by the Sessions Judge is hereby rejected. The accused is in jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not wanted in any other case. "we are now giving the reasons for the same.
( 2 ) ACCUSED Babu Ram has been convicted for an, offence under Section 302/149 I. P. C. and has been sentenced to death by the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Barabanki on 29-10-93 for committing murder of his father, mother and brotherin the night of 24/25-11-90, in village Kundelwa, P. S. Mohammadpur, District Barabanki. The case is based on circumstantial evidence and extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by accused Babu Ram.
( 3 ) DECEASED Devi Dayal, deceased Smt. Champa Devi were parents and Sitaram was brother of accused Babu Ram. These three deceased persons were living separately from accused Baburam though in the same house. According to the prosecution accused Babu Ram wanted partition of the property from his father Devi Dayal, who was not agreeable for the same. In the night of 24/25-11-90, Ram Saharey, P. W. 1, uncle of the accused and brother of deceased Devi Dayal, who has got his house near the house of accused, along with his family members were witnessing the T. V. , At about 11 in the night they heard cries of Baburam. There upon Ram Saharey along with Jagatram, Ram Sumiram P. W. 2 and others went to the house of the accused, who told them that his parents and brother Sitaram had gone to Mahadeva Mela, but they had not come back and that some miscreants had entered into his house and had taken away his belongings. On this information Ram Saharey and others tried to locate those culprits, but none was visible. They came back to their house as it had become quite late.
( 4 ) IN the morning Ram Saharey P. W. 1 along with Tarawati P. W. 6 (sister of the accused), Shitla Prasad P. W. 7 (Bahnoi of the accused, husband of another sister of the accused) went to the house of the accused and enquired from him about the incident in detail after expressing about as to how all the three persons had together gone to Mahadeva Mela leaving the house all alone. After hectic and deep enquiry from accused Baburam he started weeping and stated before them that on account of property matter he along with Lal Saheb (brother-in-law of his brother-in-law i. e. Sale Ka Sala) and 4-5 associates of Lal Saheb, whose names he did not know, committed murder of his parents and brother and had burried their dead bodies inside the house in the verandah. On getting the said information all of them went inside the house, the accused removed mud and wooden planks from that place and all of them took out the three dead bodies and brought, the same in the Court-yard. Thereafter Ram Saharey, P. W. 1 prepared the F. I. R. Ext. Ka 1 and lodged the same at P. S. Mohammadpur, on the same day i. e. 25-11-90 at about 11. 30 a. m. and a case was registered accordingly.
( 5 ) STATION Officer Dayanand Singh P. W. 5 started investigation and he interrogated Ram Saharey P. W. 1 at the police station and came on the spot. He inspected all the three dead bodies which were lying in the Court-yard of the house. He prepared Panchnama in presence of Surya Prakash Singh P. W. 3 and others and also prepared other relevant documents and sealed the dead bodies and sent them for post mortem. He had taken into custody the blood-stained and ordinary clay from the place where the dead bodies were lying. He interrogated Ram Sumiram P. W. 2, Smt. Tarawati P. W. 6, Shitla Pd. P. W. 7. He inspected the site and prepared the siteplan Ext. Ka. 19. Accused Baburam was present on the spot. He was taken i