Back
2012 Supreme(All) 844
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Barin Ghosh;CJ, U.C.Dhyani, JJ.
Gaurav -Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand -Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 41 of 2011
Decided On : 29-3-2012
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish the accused's involvement in the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and the impact of deficiencies in evidence and investigation on the court's decision.
Headnote:
IPC - Criminal Law - Sections 394, 302, 201 - The court discussed the prosecution's attempt to establish the presence of the accused with the victim, the deficiencies in the investigation, and the lack of evidence linking the accused to the crime. The court found serious infirmities in the investigation and concluded that the appellant should be given the benefit of doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution attempted to establish the accused's involvement in a case involving looting and murder. However, the court found deficiencies in the evidence and serious infirmities in the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the accused's presence with the victim and acknowledged serious infirmities in the investigation, leading to the decision to give the appellant the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the prosecution's attempt to establish the accused's involvement in the crime, the deficiencies in the evidence and investigation, and the lack of direct evidence linking the accused to the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence linking the accused to the crime, serious infirmities in the investigation, and the failure to establish the accused's presence with the victim.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant, and ordered the appellant's release from jail.
In the instant case, P.W.I Kamal Gupta lodged com#31;plaint (Ext.Ka-1) against accused per#31;sons on January 12, 2002. The same was registered as case crime No. 24/2002 under sections 394, 302, 201 IPC by P.S. Lansdowne, District Pauri Garhwal on 12.1.2002 at 8:00 a.m. The occurrence took place on 11.1.2002 at unknown time. The distance between place of oc#31;currence and P.S. Lansdowne was 27 kilometres. Hence, there appeared to be no delay in lodging chik FIR (Ext.Ka-9).
2. Prosecution story was narrated by P.W.I Kamal Gupta before the trial Court. He said amongst other things, that he was the Director/Proprietor of M/s. Shiv Dayal Gupta Agency Pvt. Ltd. Kotdwar. The said firm owned a truck No. UP06 5774. On 8.1.2002, Sudhir and appellant Gaurav were de#31;puted as driver and cleaner on the said truck. Sudhir and appellant Gaurav were present before the Trial Court when P.W.I Kamal Gupta deposed. In#31;formant said in his examination-in-chief that the salesman of his firm was victim Naresh Agarwal. On 8.1.2002 the truck was sent for sale of various articles from Srinagar to Gopeshwar via Rudra-prayag. Salesman Naresh Agarwal, driver Sudhir and cleaner Gaurav were sent with the truck. On 11.1.2002, victim Naresh Agarwal rang-up the informant from Rudraprayag that they were pro#31;ceeding (to Kotdwar), but employees did not reach Kotdwar on 11.1.2002. On 12.1.2002 another driver Virendra Singh of the same firm informed proprietor of the firm that truck No. UP06 5774 was found by him near the bridge of river Kho in suspicious circumstances. Infor#31;mant went to the bridge and found truck in damaged condition. The lock of cash box was broken. There was no cash inside it. Informant made a search for the corpus of driver, cleaner and sales#31;man. At Krainkhal informant found dead body of cashier Naresh Agarwal. Driver and cleaner were not found. He suspected that driver and cleaner have looted the cash. P.W.I Kamal Gupta proved complaint Ext.Ka-1. Then he accompanied police party. He further proved recovery memo of cash- memo and diary (Ext, Ka-2). Truck was given in his supurdagi vide Ext.Ka-3. He ob#31;tained cash memo and diary from the Investigating Officer for accounting and payment. Accused persons looted a sum of Rs. 3,66,272.50 after killing Naresh Agarwal. P.W.I Kamal Gupta also proved diary (Material Ext.l) and cash memo (Material Ext.2). He also proved the application (Ext.Ka-4) which was addressed to the Station Officer for ob#31;taining diary and cash memo. He also proved accounts presented before S.O. Lansdowne (Ext.Ka-5).
In his cross-examination, he admit#31;ted that in Material Ext.2 (cash memo) names of seller and purchaser were not mentioned. Cash memos of 1.1.2002, 9.1.2002 and 10.1.2002 were not pre#31;pared. Name of victim was not men#31;tioned in Material Ext.1 (diary). He ad#31;mitted that it is not clear from diary (Ext.1) whether victim received any money or not? Sudhir was deputed on the truck since last days of November, 2001. Appellant Gaurav was deputed on the said truck since December 2001. Names of these two appellants were recorded in the Labour Office as well as the Register (which was not produced before the Court on the day of deposi#31;tion but was offered to be produced in the Court on the next date. This said register was never produced). He admit#31;ted that Rs. 3,66,272.50 were neither mentioned in Ext.1 nor in Ext.2. Victim Naresh Agarwal carried Rs. 4,12,151.00 along with him as per statement Ext. 5. He admitted that the goods were bought by victim on 8.1.2002. The description of the same was not presented before the Court. He admitted that he did not see the occurrence. Ext.Ka-2 and Ext.Ka-3 were prepared near the bridge. A sug#31;gestion was put forwarded to the infor#31;mant that the appellant was not in his employment as conductor to which the informant denied. He also denied that the appellant was not the culprit.
3. P.W. Kamal Gupta did not pro#31;duce any document o
