Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1696
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUDHIR AGARWAL, RAJENDRA KUMAR, JJ.
Mukesh @ Murari — Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. — Respondent
Jail Appeal No. 4771 of 2017
Decided on : 11-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Ashok Kumar Yadav, Adv., Syed Ali Murtaza, Adv.
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence that is consistent only with the guilt of the accused and excludes any other reasonable hypothesis.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - The court analyzed the circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory to determine the guilt of the accused under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. The judgment highlighted the legal principles related to circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused-appellant, Mukesh @ Murari, was involved in the murder of Sunder Lal. The case was based on circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory, with witnesses claiming to have seen the victim with the accused before his disappearance. The accused denied the charges and claimed false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused. The court emphasized the importance of proving guilt based on circumstantial evidence and highlighted the inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses.
Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution could establish the guilt of the accused based on circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence that is consistent only with the guilt of the accused and excludes any other reasonable hypothesis. The court also highlighted the importance of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in such cases.
Final Decision: The accused-appellant, Mukesh @ Murari, was acquitted of the charges and ordered to be released forthwith, as the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
JUDGMENT :
Rajendra Kumar, J.
This jail appeal has been filed by accused-appellant, Mukesh @ Murari through Superintendent of District Jail, Kannauj against impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2016 passed by Smt. Preeti Srivastava, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Kannauj in Session Trial No. 340 of 2008, (State v. Mukesh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1020 of 2008, Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj, under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC. By impugned judgment, accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 read with 34 IPC for life imprisonment along-with fine of Rs.5,000/-. In the event of default of payment of fine, he has to undergo further two years simple Imprisonment.
2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 21.07.2008, PW-3 Kishori Lal submitted a written report Ex.Ka-2 in Police Station, Kannauj, stating therein that on 21.07.2008 at about 10:00 AM, he was informed by villagers that one dead body of an unknown person was lying in the filed of one Shovran Lal son of Pitam Singh , resident of Haibatpur Katra, Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj.
3. Pw-7 Sub Inspector R.V. Singh Chauhan, on the said information held inquest over the dead body of unknown person after nominating punch witnesses and prepared inquest report Ex.Ka-6 and other relevant papers thereto; sealed dead body and sent for postmortem, got prepared photographs of dead body. He also collected one towel, one shirt of deceased, one pants of light blue colour, one under wear, one set of plastic sleeper and prepared fard Ex.Ka-1 thereof.
4. Pw-5 Dr. Nanhoomal conducted postmortem over the dead body of unknown person aged about 25 years and found one ligature mark 32 x 4 cm around the neck as ante mortem injury. Doctor further opined that death was possible due to shock asphyxia as a result of strangulation on account of ante mortem ligature mark and three days prior to postmortem. He prepared postmortem report Ex.Ka-4.
5. Pw-6 C.P. Rajkumar Srivastava converted the matter at crime no.1020 of 2008, under Section 302 IPC against unknown person on the basis of postmortem report dated 22.07.2008 and entry of the case was made in General Diary, copy whereof is Ex.Ka-5.
6. Pw-8, Dayanand Singh the then Inspector In-charge of Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj, on 22.07.2008 under took investigation of case crime no.1020 of 2008, under Section 302 IPC and commenced investigation, recorded statement of witnesses, visited spot and prepared site plan Ex.Ka-11. On 28.07.2008 he tried to know about the deceased.
7. On 05.08.2008, PW-1 Munni Devi submitted a written report Ex.Ka-1 in Police Station Kannauj stating that his son Sunder Lal was taken by accused Mukesh @ Murari in the morning of 19.07.2008 from her house and since then he is missing. She came to know that a dead body of unknown person was found in the Village Haibatpur Katra and prayed that she may be permitted to see the clothes of dead body, so as to know where about of her son. She was shown photographs and clothes of deceased whereupon it was recognized to be of Sunder Lal.
8. Pw-8 SI Dayanand Singh further recorded statement of PW-1 Smt. Munni Devi, PW-4 Smt. Suman; Rajesh, Smt. Sarojini and Babu Ram ( not examined); arrested accused Mukesh @ Murari and Shera, recorded their statements and after completing entire formalities of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against Moolchand, Shera and accused-appellant Mukesh @ Murari.
9. After taking cognizance of the offences, case being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions was committed to Sessions Court, where from it was transferred to Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Kannauj for disposal according to law.
10. Trial Court framed charges on 06.12.2008 against accused persons Mukesh , Moolchand and Shera, under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC, which reads as under :-
^^eSa c`ts'k dqekj vij l= U;k;k/kh'k d{k la0 2 dUukSt esa vki vfHk;qDrx.k eqds'k] ewypUn o 'ksjk dks fuEu vkjk
