HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Sudhir Agarwal, Rajendra Kumar, JJ.
Raghuvir - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
Capital Cases No. 204 of 2018, 1 of 2019
Decided On : 03-04-2019
Penal Code, 1860 – Section 201 &302, 376 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 366, 374(2), 313 – Circumstantial evidence – Appeal against conviction – Appeal arisen from judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, whereby accused-appellant convicted under Sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC – Held, There is no evidence against accused-appellant to connect with present crime except alleged recovery of Kundal belong to deceased – Court was not correct in convicting appellant, broadly relying on confessional statement of accused-appellant while he was in Police custody and recovery allegedly belong to deceased – Which was not identified by witnesses, treating it to be conclusive proof overlooking other major contradictions in evidence and missing chain of circumstantial evidence – In our view, accused-appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt and it cannot said that prosecution has been successful in proving guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt – Directions issued – Appeal allowed. (Paras: 38 to 41)
Facts of the case:
Appeal arisen from judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, whereby accused-appellant convicted under Sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC – Circumstantial evidence – Appeal against conviction.
Findings of the court:
There is no evidence against accused-appellant to connect with present crime except alleged recovery of Kundal belong to deceased – Court was not correct in convicting appellant, broadly relying on confessional statement of accused-appellant while he was in Police custody and recovery allegedly belong to deceased – Which was not identified by witnesses, treating it to be conclusive proof overlooking other major contradictions in evidence and missing chain of circumstantial evidence – In our view, accused-appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt and it cannot said that prosecution has been successful in proving guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt – Directions issued.
Result: Appeal allowed
Rajendra Kumar, J.
1. Present Reference under Section 366 Cr.P.C. and Capital Case under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. have arisen from judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 passed by Sri Sanjeev Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1 / Special Judge, POCSO Act, Pilibhit in Special Session Trial No. 31 of 2016, whereby accused-appellant has been convicted under Sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Considering the case to be rarest of rare, accused-appellant has been awarded death sentence and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (hereinafter referred to "R.I.") for two years, under Section 376 IPC life imprisonment and Rs. 25,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, he has to further undergo R.I. for two years and further under Section 201 IPC, sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in case of default in payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for one year.
2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.02.2016, at about 7:00 p.m. daughter of PW-1 Dev Prakash (victim name withheld by us), aged about 11 years got out of his house after taking meal but did not return to her house and suddenly disappeared. Then PW-1 himself along with wife remained searching of his daughter. Dead body of victim was found lying in the bushes of Semi Tree in the vacant plot of one Ram Bahadur, behind the house of Mukesh. It was suspected that victim was murdered by some one.
3. On the basis of written report (Ex. Ka-1), presented by PW-1 and scribed by one Rishipal, chick F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-18) was lodged by Constable Clerk in the Police Station bearing Crime No. 208 of 2016, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. An entry of crime was made in General Diary No. 18 by Head Constable-Babu Ram, copy whereof is Ex.Ka-17.
4. Investigation of the case was handed over to PW-4 SI Ram Kumar Singh, who visited the spot, prepared site plan (Ex.Ka-….. ) and under the instruction of the then SHO, prepared inquest report (Ex.Ka-2) and related paper thereto i.e. Challan Lash (Ex.Ka-4), Photo Lash (Ex. Ka-5) letter to R.I., letter to C.M.O. (Ex. Ka-7) and sent body of deceased in a sealed cover for post mortem. He also took one black Dupatta, one legging Green colour, old, used and one set of plastic Sleeper (Blue Colour) into custody and prepared memo (Ex. Ka-10) under his signature.
5. During investigation, accused was apprehended by the then Station House Officer at about 6:15 a.m. on 26.02.2016. Accused-appellant confessed his guilt before Police and on his pointing out, Police recovered, his Pant from the house of accused and Kundal (Ear Ring) belong to deceased kept in the pocket of his Pant.
6. Pw-3 Dr. T.P. Rathore conducted autopsy of deceased and prepared post mortem report (Ex. Ka-3) under his signature.
7. Pw-5 Investigation Officer concerned after completing all necessary formalities of investigation submitted charge sheet (Ex. Ka-9) against the accused-appellant.
8. Four charges were framed against accused-appellant on 12.06.2016 under Sections under Sections 376, 302, 201 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act to which accused denied and claimed trial. Charges read as under:-
^^eSa fou; dqekj&1 vij l= U;k;k/kh'k@U;k;ky; la[;k 1 ihyhHkhr vki&j/kqohj dks fuEu Ádkj vkjksfir djrk gwa %& ÁFke & ;g fd fnukad 21-2-2016 dks lk;a 7-00 cts ls fnukad 22-2-2016 dh e/; fdlh le; okg~n xzke HkSjksdyka Fkkuk ek/kksVkaMk ftyk ihyhHkhr es vkius oknh nso Ádk'k ekS;Z dh ukckfyx iq=h lksuh nsoh mez yxHkx 11 o"kZ ds lkFk mldh bPNk ds fo:) tcjnLrh cykRlax fd;kA bl Ádkj vkius ,slk d`R; fd;k tks HkkŒnaŒlŒ dh /kkjk 376 ds v/khu n.Muh; vijk/k gS ,oa bl U;k;ky; ds ÁlaKku esa gSA f}rh; & ;g fd mijksDr fnukad] le; o LFkku ij vkius oknh nso Ádk'k ekS;Z dh ukckfyx iq=h lksuh nsoh mez 11 o"kZ ds lkFk cykRdkj djus ds mijkUr mls e`R;q dkfjr djds mldh gR;k dj nhA bl Ádkj vkius ,slk d`R; fd;k tks HkkŒnaŒlaŒ dh /kkjk 376 ds v/khu n.Muh; vijk/k gS ,oa bl U;k;ky; ds ÁlaKku esa gSA r`rh; & ;g fd mijksDr
Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Bodh Raj @ Bodha and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
C. Chenga Reddy and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of M.P.
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
Shivu and Another v. Registrar General High Court of Karnataka and Another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.