Back
2018 Supreme(All) 1589
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Anil Kumar, Sanjay Harkauli, JJ.
Roopchand – Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1483 of 2016
Decided On : 23-04-2018
Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi, Adv.
The guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, and suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof.
Headnote:
FABRICATION - Criminal Law - IPC Section 302 - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 302 - The court discussed the importance of proving the version of the FIR and the duty of the prosecution to establish the contents of the FIR. It emphasized the need for cogent evidence and the duty to produce the alleged weapon of the offence and the doctor who conducted the autopsy. The judgment highlighted the principle that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and that suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution failed to establish the contents of the FIR, and the witnesses did not support the version of the FIR. The court emphasized the need for cogent evidence and the duty to produce the alleged weapon of the offence and the doctor who conducted the autopsy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and only relied on mere suspicion to convict the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the failure of the prosecution to establish the contents of the FIR, produce the alleged weapon of the offence, and examine the doctor who conducted the autopsy.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized the principle that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and that suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order convicting the accused were set aside.
Anil Kumar, J.
Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned amicus curiae for the appellant and Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent - State and perused the record.
2. Present appeal has been filed by the accused - appellant against the judgment and order dated 04.07.2007 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in Sessions Trial No.5 of 2004 arising out of Case Crime No.81 of 2003, under Section 302 of IPC, P.S. - Ibrahimpur, District Ambedkar Nagar thereby convicting the appellant under Section 302 of IPC for life imprisonment and awarding Rs.10,000/- as fine.
3. Prosecution has set into motion on the basis of an FIR lodged on 11.10.2003 at 07:50 AM by complainant Virendra Kumar son of Late Ramshabd Chamar resident of Badruddinpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar that at about 5:00 AM his elder brother Roopchand who is separately residing with his wife Pushpa due to some difference between his wife and mother Maina Devi. Inspite of the fact that they are living separately the dispute used to take place upon which the wife of his elder brother (Roopchand) had gone to her maternal home situate at village Sonahra, District Ambedkar Nagar. Due to the said fact the accused - appellant Roopchand was annoyed and when his mother was sleeping on a cot, assaulted her on the face with Garasa. After hearing her noise, the complainant alongwith his younger sister Meera, younger brother Arvind and other residents of the same village namely Shyamlal and Ram Sundar reached at the place of occurrence and saw the incidence.
4. Accordingly, the matter was entrusted to Sub-Inspector Shiv Veer Singh of P.S.- Ibrahimpur, District Ambedkar Nagar who prepared the inquest report, sent the body of the deceased (Maina Devi) for post-mortem and recorded the statements of the persons, who are named in the FIR under Section 161 Cr.P.C, recovered the weapon of assault Garasa used for committing crime, at the pointing out of the accused - appellant. In presence of Ram Sundar, charge-sheet has been submitted in Case Crime No.81 of 2003, under Section 302 of IPC.
5. Thereafter, the case was referred to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar where it has been registered as S.T. No.05 of 2004 (State Vs. Roopchand).
6. Prosecution in order to prove its case has produced P.W.-1 Ram Sundar, P.W.-2 Km. Meera - younger sister of the complainant, P.W.-3 Arvind - younger brother of the complainant, P.W.- 4 Virendra Kumar - Complainant & P.W.- 5 Smt. Sushila - elder sister of the complainant.
7. Accused - appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied the guilt.
8. Trial Court after taking into consideration the material on record passed the judgment of conviction dated 04.07.2007 against the accused - appellant on the ground that the weapon of assault i.e. Garasa used for committing the crime, has been recovered by the police on the pointing out of the accused - appellant himself in the presence of independent witness namely P.W.-1 Ram Sundar on 11.10.2003.
9. Trial Court has also taken into consideration that the weapon (Garasa) used for committing the crime, as per the FSL Report, human blood was found on it and given a finding that from the statements given by P.W.-2 to P.W.-5, it is established that the crime in question has been committed by the accused - appellant.
10. Shri Rajesh Dwivedi, learned amicus curiae while challenging the judgment dated 04.07.2007 has argued that in the instant matter, the FIR had been lodged on the version of P.W.- 4 Virendra Kumar - younger brother of the accused - which was written by P.W.- 1 Ram Sundar on his behalf. However, during cross-examination the complainant denied the said fact and stated that the facts mentioned in the FIR are incorrect, as the same are not narrated to Ram Sundar, who has written the FIR on his behalf, that he had seen the accused - appellant assaulting his mother on her face and when
