Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M.C.Agarwal, J.C.Mishra
BHOTA
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 09 September 1998
Criminal Appeal No. 1717 of 1980 and Criminal Appeal No. 1716 of 1980
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - SECTION 302, IPC - EVIDENCE - EYE-WITNESSES - RELIABILITY - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - FORENSIC ANALYSIS - INVESTIGATION - DEFICIENCIES - WITNESS INTIMIDATION - CONVICTION OVERTURNED - SECTION 147/148, 201, IPC - SECTION 302/149, IPC
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the alleged murder of Bodhi by seven appellants, Lootey, Bhola, Harish Chandra, Bhadaiya, Ram Vishal, Kulli, and Shripal. The prosecution's story, based on the first information report (FIR) filed by Bhanmati, the deceased's sister-in-law, claimed that the appellants attacked Bodhi with axes and sticks, dragged him to their house, and then took his body away in a bullock cart towards the Yamuna river. The appellants were convicted of various offenses under Sections 147/148, 201, and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found several deficiencies in the prosecution's case. The FIR was deemed suspicious due to its detailed nature and the improbability of an illiterate woman like Bhanmati providing such a detailed account. The investigation was criticized for its lack of urgency in searching for the deceased's body and for failing to send crucial evidence, such as blood-stained earth and a piece of the bullock cart, for forensic analysis. The court also noted inconsistencies in the testimonies of the three alleged eyewitnesses, Prasad, Raja Ram, and Girdhari.
Issues: 1. Reliability of eyewitness testimony 2. Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence 3. Adequacy of forensic analysis 4. Deficiencies in the investigation 5. Allegations of witness intimidation
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The eyewitness testimony was found to be unreliable due to inconsistencies and contradictions. The circumstantial evidence was deemed insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. The lack of forensic analysis and the deficiencies in the investigation further weakened the prosecution's case. The court also considered the allegations of witness intimidation and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the recording of the FIR.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeals filed by the appellants and acquitted them of all charges. The conviction and sentence recorded by the lower court were set aside.
These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 7-8-1980 passed by the Illrd Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge found appellants Bhola, Lootey, Harish Chandra, Bhadaiya and Ram Vishal in Ap peal No. 1717 of 1980 guilty of offences under Sections 147/148 and 302/149, IPC The appellants Harish Chandra and Bhadaiya have been convicted for the of fence under Section 148, IPC and sen tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. Appellants Bhola Lootey and Ram Vishal were found guilty of an offence under Section 147, IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. All the five appellants have been found guilty of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellants have also found guilty of an offence under Section 201, IPC but no separate conviction has been recorded against them because they have been convicted for the main offence under Section 302, IPc
2. Kulli and Shripal appellants in criminal Appeal No. 1716 of 1980 have been found guilty of an offence under Sec tion 201, IPC read with Section 149, IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months.
3. We have heard Sri J. S. Sengar learned Counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and Sri Anoop Ghosh, Addi tional Government Advocate for the State.
4. The prosecution commenced on the basis of first information report pur porting to have been orally lodged by Smt. Bhanmati wife of Monohar resident of village Loharan Garhwa, police station Ghazipur at 3. 10 p. m. at police station Ghazipur in the district of Fatehpur. The story set up in this F. I. R. which is Exhibit Ka-1 is on record was that at about 10 0 clock in the day on 13-9-1979 she alongwith her sister- in-law (Deorani) Smt. Laxmaniya and her children Kunni Devi and Shyam aged 6 and 7 years and bhanja Bodhi who used to live with them, was sitting at the Chabutra of her house. Lootey alongwith his brother Bhola and son Harish Chandra and Bhadaiya son of Bhola and Ram Vishal son of Sanwaliya who are resident of the same village and belonged to the informants caste i. e. Kevat and live in the neighbourhood of her house arrived there. Harish Chandra and Bhadaiya were armed with axes (Kul- hari) while Lootey, Bhola and Ram Vishal had lathis. Lootey and Harish Chandra caught hold of Bodhi and started dragging him. As Bodhi resisted all the accused thrashed him to the ground and then dragged him to the door of their house. She and the aforesaid members of her family raised an alarm and tried to intervene but the assailants threatened them. They as saulted Bodhi with lathis and Kulhari and killed him. The first informant Smt. Bhan-mati and other persons including Prasad, Girdhari and Rajaram who arrived at the spot, saw the occurrence from the place in front of the house of Ghasitey. The ac cused said that the deadbody be thrown in the Yamuna river after severing the head. Some other persons of the village were also attracted to the spot but no body dared to intervene. Accused Shripal and Kulli also arrived there. Lootey accused asked Shripal to bring his bullock and put the dead body in the cart of Gaya Prasad and proceeded towards river Yamuna. Bhan-mati ran towards the cart to prevent the assailants from taking away the deadbody out she was pushed with force and the assailants moved away, brandishing their weapons.
5. The F. I. R. also mentions the mo tive for this crime. It is stated that at about 10 a. m. the same day there was an exchange of words between Looteys mother and Bodhi and Bodhi had accused looteys mother of defaming them. In that incident Bodhi was alleged to have given 2-3 first blows to that lady. It is for this reason that the
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
