Back
2010 Supreme(All) 1772
2011(72) ACC 850
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Nirmal Yadav, J. B.C. Kandpal, J
Raju and another – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 960 of 2001 Old Number Criminal Appeal No. 299 of 1994
Decided on : 19.05.2010
Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate for appellant no. 1.
Mr. R.P.Nautiyal, Advocate for appellant no. 2.
Mr. Nandan Arya, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, taking into account the credibility of witness testimonies, the timing of the First Information Report, and the presence of crucial evidence.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302 - Section 34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence and arguments related to the prosecution's case under section 302 and section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The key legal provisions of the Indian Penal Code were interpreted in the context of the evidence presented and the court's decision to acquit the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the appellants were involved in the murder of the deceased. The court analyzed the evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports, and found discrepancies in the prosecution's case. The presence of the witnesses at the scene of the crime, the timing of the First Information Report, and the lack of motive and evidence raised doubts about the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of the witnesses at the scene of the crime, the motive for the murder, and the promptness of the First Information Report. It also noted discrepancies in the medical reports and the absence of crucial evidence such as the murder weapon and the deceased's bicycle. As a result, the court acquitted the appellants of the charges.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies, the timing of the First Information Report, the presence of the witnesses at the scene of the crime, the motive for the murder, and the reliability of the medical reports.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of credible evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The discrepancies in witness testimonies, the timing of the First Information Report, and the absence of crucial evidence led the court to conclude that the prosecution's case was not proven.
Final Decision: The court acquitted both appellants of the charges against them, allowed their appeal, and canceled their bail bonds.
Nirmal Yadav, J
1. Present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.02.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital whereby appellant Raju has been convicted under section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) while appellant Makkhan has been convicted under section 302 read with section 34 IPC. They have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they have been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
2. Prosecution story, as unfolded by PW 2 Ram Bharose in his oral complaint, is that on 08.09.1991 at about 7.30 p.m. his son Lekhraj was coming toward his house from the fertilizer shop where he was employed. PW3 Ramai, cousin brother of complainant Ram Bharose was also accompanying him (Lekhraj) on foot. When they reached near the corner of Baigul River accused Raju exhorted “sala aa gaya”. On this accused Makkhan stated that “let he be finished and his accounts be cleared.” Immediately thereafter, accused Raju fired at Lekhraj with his country made pistol, which hit on his chest. When PW2 Ram Bharose raised alarm, many persons reached the spot. According to the complainant, accused were clearly identified by him and his cousin in the light emitted by bulb fixed on the pole. Both of them tried to catch hold of the accused but they escaped towards village Bhadaipura. According to the complainant, accused Raju had enmity with Lekhraj on account of some money transaction and accused Makkhan is a friend of Raju. Accused Raju is running a tea stall near Eye Hospital, village – Bhadaipura.
3. Complainant Ram Bharose and Ramai removed Lekhraj to the Government Hospital, Rudrapur on rickshaw. After leaving Lekhraj in the hospital, he went to the police station, Rudrapur and made oral statement, on the basis of which FIR was lodged. GD entry in this respect is exhibit Ka 12. Investigation was undertaken by PW 7 Yagya Pal Singh Solanki. He recorded the statement of the complainant and inspected the spot. He prepared scaled site plan (exhibit Ka 9). He also lifted blood stained as well as simple earth from the place of occurrence and sealed them separately in two boxes and took into possession memo exhibit K 10. He also recorded the statement of Lekhraj (injured) under section 161 Cr.P.C., copy of which is exhibit Ka 11. The investigation, thereafter, was handed over to SSI Gajendra Singh Rautela (PW8). Initially the case was registered under section 307 IPC but since Lekhraj expired the case was converted to section 302 IPC. There is entry in this respect in GD no. 40 (exhibit Ka 13) at 15.25 p.m. on 9.9.1991. Statement of PW2 Ram Bharose and other witnesses was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 03.11.1991. Thereafter, challan was presented on 03.11.1991. On the basis of evidence and documents on record accused Raju was charged under section 302 IPC while accused Makkhan was charged under section 302 read with section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as eight witnesses. PW1 Dr. T.C. Pant, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Lekhraj. Both PW2 Ram Bharose, father of the deceased Lekhraj and PW3 Ramai, cousin brother of Ram Bharose, are the eye witness. PW4 Dr. A.K. Rana, medico-legally examined the injured and prepared MLR exhibit Ka-3 at 7.45 p.m. on the date of occurrence itself. PW5 Constable Chandra Singh, scribed the panchayatnama on the dictation of PW6 SI K.P. Sharma. PW7 Yagya Pal Singh Solanki remained the investigating officer only on 08.09.1991 and thereafter, investigation was handed over to PW8 SSI Gajendra Singh Rautela, from 09.09.1991 to 03.11.1991 i.e. till the date on which challan was presented under section 173 Cr.P.C. in the court.
5. PW3 Dr. A.K. Rana, in his medico legal report (exhibit Ka 3) found the following:
“i. Fire arm wound on the left side of chest 2 cm X 1.5 cm dep
