Back
2018 Supreme(All) 1803
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), Umesh Chandra Tripathi, JJ.
Gajendra - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1999 of 2009
Decided On : 06-08-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K.K. Srivastava, A.C. Srivastava, D.P. Singh, Uday Gopal, Samarth Sinha
For the Respondent:Government Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of circumstantial evidence and the principles of burden of proof in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Murder - IPC Section 302, 201 - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 302, 201 - The court discussed the circumstantial evidence and the application of Exception IV to Section 300 Cr.P.C. The judgment highlighted the principles of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof on the prosecution. The court also referred to the principles laid down in various judgments to establish guilt based on circumstantial evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the murder of his sister, based on circumstantial evidence. The deceased was married to the appellant and had three children. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and his sister demanded money from the deceased, and when the demand was not fulfilled, they assaulted her. The deceased was found murdered and buried in the appellant's house.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including the marriage, living arrangements, and the burial of the deceased in the appellant's house, proved the charges against the appellant. The court also discussed the principles of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof on the prosecution.
Issues: The issues revolved around the circumstantial evidence, the application of Exception IV to Section 300 Cr.P.C, and the burden of proof on the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof, emphasizing the need for the circumstances to be fully established, conclusive in nature, and consistent only with the guilt of the accused. The court also discussed the application of Exception IV to Section 300 Cr.P.C in cases of sudden fights.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC was modified to Section 304 Part-I, and the sentence under Section 201 IPC was upheld. The appellant was set at liberty forthwith as the sentence was already undergone.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Heard Sri Samarth Sinha, for the appellant, Sri Anil Kumar Kushwaha, A.G.A., for State of U.P.
2. Gajendra (the appellant) has filed this appeal, from his conviction and sentence passed by Additional Session's Judge, Court No. 11, Meerut, dated 05.09.2008, in S.T. No. 369 of 2007, State vs. Gajendra (arising out of Case Crime No. 7 of 2007, under Section 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Kharkhauda, district Meerut), convicting him under Section 302 and 201 IPC and awarding sentence of imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) under Section 302 IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand) under Section 201 IPC. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.
3. On the complaint (Ex-Ka-1) of Ram Autar (PW-1), FIR (Ex-Ka-5) of Case Crime No. 7 of 2007, under Section 302, 201 IPC was registered at P.S. Kharkhauda, by Head Constable Amar Singh (PW-6) on 10.01.2007 at 13:45 hours, against Gajendra (the appellant) and his sister Samantera. It has been stated in the complaint that Sushila aged about 30 years (sister of the informant) was married to Gajendra, resident of village Kaili, PS Kharkhauda, about 9 years ago. From the said wedlock, they had three children. The accused used to demand money from his sister by way of debt. Due to not satisfying demand of money, Gajendra and his sister Samantera used to assault her. On 08.01.2007, Samantera informed him on phone that his sister Sushila was missing. Since then they were searching her. The accused murdered his sister on 08.01.2007 in evening and buried the dead body in his room digging a pit. He received information from the neighbourer of the accused, in this respect on telephone, on 10.01.2007 that dead body of Sushila was lying in her in-law's house of village Kaili. The accused have committed murder of his sister.
4. After registration of FIR, SHO Nirmal Singh (PW-7) started investigation. After copying check FIR in case diary, he recorded statement of Ram Autar, the informant and Anand Pal Singh, the scribe. He came on the spot along with SI Puran Singh and other police personnel. On his direction SI Puran Singh conducted Inquest (Ex-Ka-2) of the dead body of Sushila on 10.01.2007 up to 15:45 hours. He prepared photo lash and letters to the authorities for conducting postmortem of the dead body (Ex-Ka-7 to Ka-11). Vishal (minor) son of the accused gave one shawl to him, which was allegedly used to strangulate the deceased. He prepared its recovery memo (Ex-Ka-3). He inspected the spot and prepared site-plan (Ex-Ka-12). Thereafter, he copied the Inquest in case diary and recorded statements of witnesses of the Inquest as well as Devendra and Vijendra, witnesses on the spot. He arrested the appellant on 12.01.2007 and recorded his statement. On 14.01.2007, he recorded statement of Bimlesh and Kamlesh (sister and brother of the deceased). On 18.01.2007, he recorded statements of other witnesses. After completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet (Ex-Ka-13) against Gajendra and exonerated Samantera. On which cognizance was taken.
5. Dr. Satish Kumar (PW-5) conducted autopsy of the dead body on 10.01.2007 at 10:00 PM and prepared postmortem report (Ex-Ka-4), in which following ante-mortem injuries were noted:-
(i) Faint contusion 14 cm x 2.5 cm on front side of neck, 6 cm below front chin, 5 cm below from right ear, 4 cm below from left ear. Gap interval is 17 cm. Ecelysis present around injury. Extranassafir of clotted and fluid blood in soft tissues of neck under injury.
(ii) Contusion 6 cm x 2 cm on left side, front of chest, 13 cm below from left nipple at 5:00 clock position.
(iii) Contusion 4 cm x 2 cm on outer aspect of lower part of left forearm 3 cm above waist.
(iv) Abraded contusion 16 cm x 2 cm on medial aspect of left thigh 11 cm above from knee.
(v) Abrasion 2 cm x 0.5 cm on front of right knee.
According to him injury no. 1 was caused strangulation with the help of clothes. Injuri
