Back
2018 Supreme(All) 2343
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
B. Amit Sthalekar, J.J. Munir, JJ.
Subhash – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 735 of 2003
Decided On : 22-11-2018
For the Appellant : D.N. Pandey, D.W. Pandey, Divya Ojha (A.C.)
In a circumstantial evidence case, the prosecution must prove a chain of circumstances that unerringly point to the accused's guilt, excluding every other hypothesis. Each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and all of them together must form an unbroken chain leading to an inescapable conclusion of guilt. The court must consider the circumstances in their totality, including the accused's explanation, if any, and determine whether they form a complete and unbroken chain of evidence.
Headnote:
In a circumstantial evidence case, the prosecution must prove a chain of circumstances that unerringly point to the accused's guilt, excluding every other hypothesis. Each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and all of them together must form an unbroken chain leading to an inescapable conclusion of guilt. The court must consider the circumstances in their totality, including the accused's explanation, if any, and determine whether they form a complete and unbroken chain of evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Ajita, was found dead in her matrimonial home with a stab wound to her private part. Her husband, Subhash, was not at home at the time of the incident and remained absconding for eight days. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the fact that Subhash and Ajita were last seen together, Subhash's abscondence, and the nature of the injury, to prove Subhash's guilt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and that Subhash's explanation was not tenable. The court held that the circumstances formed an unbroken chain of evidence pointing to Subhash's guilt and convicted him of murder.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether Subhash's explanation was tenable. 3. Whether the circumstances formed an unbroken chain of evidence pointing to Subhash's guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had proved the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and that Subhash's explanation was not tenable. The court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: * In a circumstantial evidence case, the prosecution must prove a chain of circumstances that unerringly point to the accused's guilt, excluding every other hypothesis. * Each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and all of them together must form an unbroken chain leading to an inescapable conclusion of guilt. * The court must consider the circumstances in their totality, including the accused's explanation, if any, and determine whether they form a complete and unbroken chain of evidence.
Final Decision: The court convicted Subhash of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
JUDGMENT :
J.J. Munir, J.
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order of Sri Yogesh Kumar, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.5, Azamgarh, dated 16.01.2003, convicting the appellant of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and, sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment, besides being ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In the event of default, the appellant has been ordered to suffer six months' simple imprisonment.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that a written report scribed by one Devendra Kumar dated 17.06.2001, was lodged by the informant, Jagesar with Police Station Kaptanganj, District Azamgarh, reporting that he is a resident of Village Bibipur, P.S. Tahvarpur, District Azamgarh. Smt. Ajita (the deceased), daughter of the informant's brother, Satai, was married about 20 years ago to one Subhash, who was living in her matrimonial home. The couple had three children: two sons and a daughter. The elder son was aged about 10 years (presumably at the time of occurrence). On 17.06.2001, at about 5 O' clock in the morning hours, on account of some exchange of sharp words between the informant's niece and Subhash, Subhash assaulted her by some weapon with an intention to kill, in consequence of which, she died on the spot. The information was given about the incident to the informant at his home by some persons. He (informant) went over to Village Pasipur, inquired about the matter, and, after verification, had come over to give information. The deceased's father was in private employment at Kanpur. The incident was seen by the natives of the village. The dead body was lying on the spot. The information closed with a request to register a case.
3. On the basis of this written report, Case Crime No.129 of 2001, under Section 302 IPC was registered at P.S. Kaptanganj, District Azamgarh against appellant, Subhash. In this regard, an entry was made in G.D. no.10 at 10.15 on 17.06.2001. The Investigating Officer taking up investigation, recorded the statement of the informant, Jagesar, inspected the place of incident, and, drew up the site plan. On 17.06.2001, Sub-Inspector Ram Daras Verma held inquest between 11.25 a.m. to 13.15 p.m. and drew up an inquest report (Panchayatnama) to which the Panch witnesses appended their signatures. He addressed a report to the Chief Medical Officer requiring him to do an autopsy, a report to the Reserve Inspector to ensure the autopsy, besides drawing up police form no.13, a sketch of the corpse (photo lash), and, sent the dead body, wrapped, secured and sealed in a cloth for autopsy, entrusting it to Constables Dev Krishna and Jitendra Arya.
4. PW-5, Dr. Nand Lal Yadav, who conducted autopsy on the cadaver of Smt. Ajita (mentioned in the postmortem report as Smt. Anita Devi) on 17.06.2001 at 3.30, in the evening hours, found the following ante-mortem injury on the body of the deceased:
(Stab) Penetrating wound 2.50cm x 1cm x cavity deep on inner surface of right labia minora. On opening uterus and small intestine ruptured. Clotted blood present.
The cause of death was opined as 'Death due to haemorrhage and shock due to ante-mortem injury'.
5. On 24.06.2001 at 6.00 O' clock in the morning, the appellant, Subhash was arrested near the Union Bank, Kaptanganj, and, his statement was recorded.
6. On 21.07.2001, statements of Devendra Kumar, scribe of the written information, Panchas of inquest, namely, Indra Bhushan Singh, Ram Sakal, Hemraj, Gharbharan and Rambali, and, other witnesses, Rudal and Harishchandra, were recorded. On 22.07.2001 the relevant particulars of the postmortem report were recorded in the case diary. Additional statement of the informant, Jagesar, and, also statements of one Dal Singar and Rameshwar, were recorded.
7. SO Bansh Bahadur Yadav, the last Investigating Officer of the case, after completion of investigation, submitted a ch
