Back
2018 Supreme(All) 2334
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, JJ.
Vijai & Another – Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2006
Decided on : 26-11-2018
For the Appellant : R.K. Ojha, Anil Raghav, D.K.Diwan, I.K.Chaturvedi, Noor Mohammad, Pankaj Tripathi, S.K. Tiwari, S.K.Chaudhary, Santosh Choudhry, Sudeep Harkauli
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for cogent and firm establishment of circumstances in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the significance of motive, and the admissibility of evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 396/412 I.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 299, Section 300, Section 396, Section 412, Section 27 of the Evidence Act - The court discussed the legal provisions of culpable homicide, murder, dacoity with murder, and dishonestly receiving stolen property in the commission of dacoity. The court emphasized the importance of motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence and the need for cogent and firm establishment of circumstances to draw an inference of guilt. The judgment also highlighted the significance of identification parades and the admissibility of evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dacoity and murder incident where the deceased was shot dead while depositing money in a bank. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies to establish the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. It highlighted the defective investigation, unreliable witness testimonies, and the lack of conclusive evidence to link the accused to the crime.
Issues: The key issues included the sufficiency of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, the admissibility of recovery evidence, and the reliability of witness testimonies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances to establish guilt in cases based on circumstantial evidence. It also highlighted the importance of conducting identification parades and the admissibility of evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction of the accused and acquitted the appellant due to the failure of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused was ordered to be set free forthwith.
JUDGMENT :
Suresh Kumar Gupta, J.
1. The appellant-accused have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 43/2006 under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.11.2005 passed by Sri Ram Preet Dwivedi Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Court no. 2, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 1105 of 2005 in State of U.P. Vs. Vinod alias Julphi and others. Trial Court convicted accused-appellants Vijay, Sunil, Vinod @ Julfi under Section 396 I.P.C. for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-each in default simple imprisonment for one month, under Section 412, seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-each in default one month simple imprisonment with the stipulation that all sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The incident is of May 2002 and decision of trial court is rendered on the appeal was preferred in 2006 and the accused are in jail since June, 2002.
3. Brief facts as culled out from record of this case are that on 20.5.2002, while the brother of the complainant was on the way to the bank for depositing money to the extent of Rs. 4,00,000/-and as soon as his car reached and halted before the bank at about 11:30 am the assailant fired at the deceased and ran away with the bag in which the amount was kept. The culprit were three in number and they escaped riding a motorcycle. The deceased Gajendrapal Singh was rushed to the nearby nursing home where he was declared dead.
4. F.I.R was lodged disclosing the above facts and during the course of investigation the accused persons were arrested and on pointing out by the accused Vijay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-out of the plundered amount was recovered. Some amount in cash was also recovered from other accused namely, Vinod and Sunil. During investigation it also transpired that in all five persons were involved in the commission of offence and hence, the case which was initially registered under Section 302/394 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) was altered in Section 396/412 I.P.C.
5. The investigation being complete the charge sheet was laid against the present appellants under Section 396, 412 of I.P.C.
6. The case being exclusively triable by the court of session and it was committed by the Magistrate.
7. The Session Court summon the accused, on appearing the accused pleaded not guilty, hence Court framed the charges against the appellants for the commission of the offence under Section 396/412 I.P.C. The appellant-accused have not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. To prove the case against the appellants the prosecution has examined the following witnesses whose evidence is scrutinized by us and is read before this Court by learned advocate for the appellants and also by learned A.G.A. for the State.
9. The prosecution so as to bring home the charges have examined the following witnesses:-
I. Amrit Pal Singh - P.W. 1
II. Ripudaman Singh - P.W. 2
III. Brijendra Singh Singhal - C.W. 3
10. The prosecution relied upon the following documentary evidences so as to bring home the charges against the appellant accused.
| 1 | F.I.R. | 20.5.2002 | Ex.Ka 2 |
| 2 | Written Report | 20.5.2002 | Ex.Ka 1 |
| 3 | Recovery memo of Currency Notes | 27.6.2002 | Ex.Ka 10 |
| 4 | Recovery memo of Currency Notes | 21.6.2002 | Ex.Ka 12 |
| 5 | Recovery memo of Blood Strain and Plain Earth | 20.5.2002 | Ex. Ka 13 |
| 6 | P.M. Report | 20.5.2002 | Ex. Ka. 7 |
11. After examining the witness, further statement of the appellant-accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the appellants-accused have denied the case of the prosecution.
12. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sudeep Harkauli and learned A.G.A for the State. So as to bring home the charges levelled, the prosecutio
