Back
2018 Supreme(All) 2374
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Bala Krishna Narayana, Rajiv Gupta, JJ.
Jata Shanker Yadav - Appellant
Vs.
State Of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 2011
Decided On : 03-04-2018
For the Appellant : Lav Srivastava, Sanjay Singh,V.P. Srivastava
For the Respondent: Govt. Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the chain of circumstances in circumstantial evidence to be fully established and consistent only with the guilt of the accused.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Circumstantial Evidence - Section 302 I.P.C., Section 3/25 Arms Act - The court discussed the legal provisions and interpretations of circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the need for the chain of circumstances to be fully established and consistent only with the guilt of the accused. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the circumstances and set aside the conviction and sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the murder of his wife and possession of an illegal firearm. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the crime weapon and an alleged extra-judicial confession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances necessary to prove the guilt of the appellant. It held that apart from two undisputed circumstances, the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the other five circumstances relied upon for establishing the charges.
Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution had successfully proven the chain of circumstances to establish the guilt of the appellant based on circumstantial evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the circumstances to be fully established and consistent only with the guilt of the accused. It held that the prosecution's failure to prove the circumstances led to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
JUDGMENT :
The arguments of this case concluded on 3.4.2018. We then passed the following order :
Heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Sri Saghir Ahmad and Sri J. K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State. We are making the operative order here and now. We will give reasons later.
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgement and order dated 23.12.2010 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 4, Ballia in S.T. Nos. 263 of 2008 and 281 of 2008 is hereby set-aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. He is in jail. He shall be released forthwith unless he is wanted in some other case subject to his complying with the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
Here are the reasons :
1. This appeal has been preferred by appellant-Jata Shanker Yadav against the judgment and order dated 23.12.2010 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Ballia in S.T. No. 263 of 2008 (State vs. Jata Shanker Yadav) and S.T. No. 281 of 2008 (State vs. Jata Shanker Yadav) convicting and sentencing the appellant for imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs. 5000/-and in default of payment of fine two years additional rigorous imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. and two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-and in default of payment of fine six months additional rigorous imprisonment under Section 3/25 Arms Act.
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial is that the accused-appellant gave a written report at police station Garwar on 05.12.2007 at about 11:30 P.M. stating therein that he was a resident of village Beerpur, police station Garwar, district Ballia. In the night of 4/5.12.2007, as usual, his wife Pushpa Devi and daughter-Nandani were sleeping in their room on a single bed and he was sleeping in the adjoining hut. The courtyard of his house was illuminated by the light shredded by a lit lantern. At about 11 P.M., he suddenly heard the sound of gunshot on which he got up and sat up cautiously and he then heard the shrieks of his daughter-Nandani and saw Hari Narayan Yadav and Chhotey Lal coming out of his wife's room mumbling that their work had been done. On his making noise, the accused, brandishing their country made pistol, opened the latch of the main gate of his house and ran towards the house of Ram Aasrey. In the meantime, his daughter shouted that her mother had been shot dead. On hearing the voice of his daughter, his uncle Madan Yadav, Hare Ram Yadav sons of late Sri Baldev Yadav and Nagendra son of Hardev Yadav and several other persons also arrived at the place of occurrence. He chased the accused with them and tried to catch them on which their two other companions who were standing outside threatened to shoot them in case they came forward on which the informant and the other villagers stopped and in the meantime miscreants ran away. He returned to his house along with the villagers and saw his wife lying in a pool of blood on her bed, blood was oozing out of her wound. The informant and the other witnesses had seen and identified the accused in the light of lantern and torch. There was old enmity between the miscreants and the informant and it was on account of that enmity, they had committed the murder of his wife.
3. On the basis of the written report of the occurrence Ext. Kha2, case crime no. 184 of 2007 was registered under Section 302 I.P.C. at police station Garwar against Hari Narayan Yadav, Chhotey Lal and two unknown persons.
4. The investigation of the case was taken up by P. W. 7 Vinod Kumar Tiwari who reached the place of occurrence and held inquest on the body of deceased-Pushpa Devi and prepared the inquest report and other connected documents and also inspected the place of occurrence and prepared it's site plan in his own handwriting. Thereafter, he got the dead body of deceased-Pushpa Devi sealed and sent it for postmortem examination. The postmortem on the dead body of Pushp
