2015 Supreme(All) 3354
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, Anant Kumar, JJ.
Rashid Ali - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2131 of 2004
Decided On : 16-04-2015
For the Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Singh,Parul Kant,Pradeep Kumar Singh,Rajiv Mishra,Rama Kant Jaiswal,Soniya Mishra.
For the Respondent:- Govt. Advocate.
The main legal point established is the significance of circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, false explanation, and motive, in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Indian Penal Code - Sections 364, 302, 201 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, son-in-law of the complainant, was convicted for the murder of the complainant's son, based on circumstantial evidence. The deceased was found dead with his hands and neck tied, and the appellant was last seen with him. The appellant demanded money from the complainant, and after an altercation, took the deceased with him. The appellant later falsely claimed that the deceased had been kidnapped by miscreants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the chain of circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, false explanation, and motive arising from the altercation over money. The court rejected the appellant's defense of false implication and lack of motive.
Issues: The issues involved the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and the appellant's defense of false implication and lack of motive.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of circumstantial evidence, the need for a complete chain of evidence, and the burden on the accused to provide a reasonable explanation for incriminating circumstances. The court also highlighted the significance of motive and the last seen theory in establishing guilt.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction was upheld based on the established circumstantial evidence.
Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Smt. Smiti Sahay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the lower court record.
2. Under challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 21.8.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Unnao arising out of Case Crime No. 1017 of 2003, whereby appellant Rashid Ali was convicted for the offence under Sections 364, 302 and 201 I.P.C. For the offence under Section 364 I.P.C., he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with default stipulation of six months rigorous imprisonment. For the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., he was sentenced with imprisonment for life and also with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation of one year additional imprisonment. For the offence under Section 201 I.P.C., he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also with fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation of six months additional imprisonment.
3. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. The appellant happens to be the son in law of the complainant. The deceased was the real brother of the wife of the appellant meaning thereby he was his brother in law. The appellant also happens to be the real maternal uncle of the deceased. The marriage of the daughter of the complainant with the appellant was solemnized in the month of May 2002 and this incident has taken place on 16.5.2003.
4. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the instant appeal may be summerized as under: -
On 17.5.2003 in the morning at about 8: 30 a.m. one Rajesh Kumar Sharma gave an information at Kotwali, District Unnao that he runs a betel shop on the bypass. On 17.5.2003, he had gone to attend the call of nature at Unnao Bypass near Sulabh Shauchalaya, then he saw a dead body of a young boy aged about 10-12 years lying in the Babul bushes. His hands and neck were tied. On the basis of this information, the police registered the case and investigation proceeded. Inquest proceeding of the dead body was conducted and the dead body was sent for postmortem and the clothes of the deceased were taken into custody. On 18.5.2003, the complainant got the information through newspaper that a dead body of a young boy about 10-12 years has been found, then he also reached the police station on the same day. They were shown the photographs and the clothes of the deceased. Thereafter the dead body was identified as the dead body of the son of the complainant. This fact was entered in G.D. No. 40 on 18.5.2003 at 17: 30 hours. On 20.5.2003 appellant Rashid Ali was arrested. On the basis of his confessional statement, offence under Sections 377/511 I.P.C. was added. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant. The investigation revealed that the appellant used to demand money from the complainant for the purpose of purchase of "Kuthla" (a big utensil to store food grains) while he has not actually purchased the same. On 16.5.2003, the appellant again came to the house of the complainant (his father in law) and demanded money for the purchase of Kuthla once again but the complainant refused to fulfill the said demand and told the appellant that he has taken money for the said purpose several times and he has not purchased any Kuthla so either he should purchase the Kuthla immediately or he should refund the money, which has been given to him. This reply of the complainant agitated the appellant and some altercation took place between them. The appellant is alleged to have threatened the complainant with dire consequence, which may ensue to him and his son. After sometime, the appellant on some pretext took the deceased with him. He was seen in the village going towards Mallawan on a tempo. Thereafter he was again seen in the company of deceased at Mallawan in the evening of 16.5.2003 at about 5: 00 p.m. In the next morning, the dead bo