Back
2017 Supreme(All) 2608
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH BAGHEL, RAJIV GUPTA, JJ.
Ram Gopal - Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No., 538 of 1997
Decided On : 30-11-2017
For the Petitioners: Tej Pal, Ghanshyam Joshi, Noor Mohammad, Rahul Saxena, Sukhendr Apal Singh, V.P. Sharma.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the need for the circumstances to be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC - [Sections 302, 201 IPC] - The court discussed the evidence related to the appellant's guilt for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The key legal provisions discussed include the principles of circumstantial evidence and the requirement for the circumstances to be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The court found that the circumstances pointed towards the guilt of the appellant and affirmed the findings and sentence of the Trial Court.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was found guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for the murder of a 12-year-old boy and sentenced to life imprisonment and three years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory and recovery of the body at the instance of the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstances established against the appellant, including his presence with the deceased, knowledge of the location of the body, and motive, pointed towards his guilt. The court affirmed the findings and sentence of the Trial Court, holding the appellant guilty and imposing the sentence.
Issues: The issues involved the evaluation of circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, recovery of the body, and motive, to establish the guilt of the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the need for the circumstances to be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The court found that the circumstances pointed towards the guilt of the appellant, leading to the affirmation of the findings and sentence of the Trial Court.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's bail was cancelled. The appellant was ordered to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentence. The judgment and record were to be sent back to the lower court for necessary compliance.
1. This is an appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. by the sole appellant-Ram Gopal against the judgment and order dated 26.02.1997 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad, whereby the trial court has found the appellant guilty for commission of the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 201 IPC. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
2. The prosecution case in short is that PW-1 Ram Chandra made a written report on 26.11.1993 that his son Kamal aged about 12 years is missing for the last three days. The FIR was registered on 26.11.1993 at 3:40 P.M. The investigation was entrusted to SI Govind Singh (PW-6). In his written report, PW-1 has named the appellant for commission of the said offence.
3. PW-1 has stated in his written report that his son Kamal was working in the shop of Babbu Mistri, who runs a mechanic shop of scooter and motorcycle. On 23.11.1993 at 4:00 P.M. in the evening, the accused went to the shop of Babbu Mistri and introduced himself as a close relative of Kamal and asked him to relieve Kamal. Babbu Mistri after verifying the fact that Ram Gopal is a close relative of Kamal, allowed Kamal to accompany the accused-appellant.
4. In the evening, when Kamal did not return back to his home, then PW1 searched him at various places including the village of Ram Gopal at Gumsani.
5. After hectic search at various places, when Kamal was not found, PW-1 lodged an FIR on 26.11.1993 at 3:40 PM. On the basis of which, the chik FIR was drawn on the same day and the investigation was handed over to SI Rahtu Singh (PW-7), who arrested the appellant at 5:00 PM in the same evening.
6. It is stated that at the instance of the accused-appellant-Ram Gopal, the body of Kamal was recovered from Gaggan River. A recovery memo was prepared and the same was signed by the independent witnesses and the police officials. Thereafter, on the direction of the I.O., PW-6 Govind Singh conducted the inquest on the person of the deceased and after preparation of other relevant papers, the body was sent for postmortem.
7. PW-4 Dr. N.B. Sharma conducted an autopsy on the person of the deceased Kamal and in his opinion, the cause of death was strangulation.
8. In the post-mortem report, following injuries were found on the body of the deceased.
1. Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on the front of back on left side.
2. Abraded contusion 7 cm X 2 cm on the front of neck right side.
3. A contused area 2 cm x 1 cm on the middle of front of neck.
8. On the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant as a sole accused in the said offence. Learned Magistrate committed the matter for trial to the court of session, who framed the charges against the appellant, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. In support of its case, the prosecution has produced seven witnesses; PW-1 Ram Chandra, the first informant as well as father of the deceased Kamal, PW-2 Smt. Kalawati, the mother of the deceased Kamal, PW-3 Hasib Ali, co-worker of the deceased Kamal, PW-4 Dr. N.B. Sharma, PW-5 Babbu Mistri, owner of the shop, PW-6 SI Govind Singh and PW-7 SI Rahtu Singh, the Investigating Officer.
10. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, found the appellant guilty for commission of the offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC.
11. Accordingly, the Trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-under Section 201 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo for further one month's simple imprisonment.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Rahul Saxena submits that the finding of the Trial Court convicting the appellant for the above offence is perverse as the Trial Court has
