Back
2018 Supreme(All) 2596
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
OM PRAKASH-VII, IFAQAT ALI KHAN, JJ.
Mahendra – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Jail Appeal No. 7681 of 2010
Decided On : 23-08-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondents: A.G.A.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for circumstantial evidence to be fully established and consistent only with the guilt of the accused, as well as the need for corroboration of extrajudicial confessions and the importance of proving the chain of events beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Murder - IPC Section 302 - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 302 - Summary: The court analyzed the circumstantial evidence and the legal principles established in various cases to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the murder of his seven-year-old son based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution alleged that the appellant confessed to the murder and that the murder weapon was recovered on his pointing out. However, the evidence was not conclusive, and the witnesses' statements were inconsistent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence, including the alleged extrajudicial confession and the recovery of the murder weapon, was not reliable. The court concluded that the conviction and sentence imposed were not sustainable.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of the circumstantial evidence, including the alleged extrajudicial confession and the recovery of the murder weapon, and the consistency of the witnesses' statements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with the guilt of the accused. The court also emphasized the need for corroboration of extrajudicial confessions and the importance of proving the chain of events beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The jail appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge under IPC Section 302. The conviction and sentence imposed were set aside, and the appellant was directed to furnish a personal bond for release.
JUDGMENT :
Om Prakash-VII, J.
1. This jail appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant Mahendra, who has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 24.08.2010/25.08.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Hathras in Sessions Trial No. 473 of 2008 (State v. Mahendra) under section 302, IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine, appellant was also directed to undergo six months additional simple imprisonment.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that a written report (Ex. Ka.-1) was moved by informant Radhacharan (P.W. 1) at police station concerned on 12.8.2008 mentioning therein that his elder brother Mahendra used to take intoxicants and always used to quarrel with his wife Rekha. In the intervening night of 11/12.08.2008, Mahendra again quarreled with his wife and when she fell asleep, in anger, Mahendra committed murder of his seven years old son Lekhraj by cutting the body with spade and thereafter buried the dead body in a pit. When mother of deceased woke up, she did not find Lekhraj, then she asked her husband that where is Lekhraj, on which Mahendra told that he has killed Lekhraj and buried him. He also warned that if she dares to tell, she will also be done to death. Dead body of deceased was recovered from a pit near the house of accused.
3. On the basis of written report (Ex. Ka. 1), first information report (Ex. Ka.8) was lodged at concerned police station on 12.08.2008 itself at 5:30 a.m., GD. Entry (Ex. Ka.9) was also made. Concerned police reached at the place of occurrence, took blood stained and simple soil keeping the same in different boxes in sealed condition and after preparing the sample seal, prepared fard (Ex. Ka.2). Police also prepared inquest report (Ex. Ka. 10) of the recovered dead body along with other police papers (Ex. Ka.11, 12, 13 & 14) keeping the dead body in a sealed cloth and preparing the sample seals.
4. Spade said to have been used in commission of crime was also recovered on the same day and it was kept in a sealed cloth and prepared fard (Ex. Ka.5).
5. Investigating Officer reached the spot and prepared site plan (Ex. Ka.6 and 4).
6. Dead body of deceased was carried by the constable to mortuary for post-mortem and autopsy on the body of deceased was done on 12.08.2008 itself at 5:25 p.m.
7. On general examination, deceased was found aged about seven years. Probable time of death of deceased was ¾ day. Rigor mortis was present on body.
Following ante mortem injuries were found on the body of deceased:
(i) Incised wound 15 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep on inner side of back of scalp.
(ii) Incised wound 17 cm. x 12 cm. x bone deep on left side of face and neck (head severed).
(iii) Incised wound 10 cm. x 8 cm. x bone deep in front of upper part of chest.
(iv) Incised wound 4 cm. x 4 cm. x bone deep on inner part of right forearm (hand severed).
(v) Incised wound 3 cm. x 3 cm. x bone deep on inner part of left forearm (hand severed).
(vi) Incised wound 5 cm. x 4 cm. x bone deep on inner part of left leg (foot severed).
(vii) Incised wound 5 cm. x 4 cm. x bone deep on inner part of left leg (foot severed).
Cause of death of deceased as shown by doctor was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. Post-mortem report is Ex. Ka.3.
8. Police after interrogation of witnesses and completion of investigation submitted charge sheet (Ex. Ka.7).
9. Magistrate concerned took cognizance and case being exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge was committed for trial to Sessions Court.
10. Accused was brought from jail. Learned trial court framed charge against the accused-appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC, to which he denied and claimed his trial.
11. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined eight witness in total, out of them P.W. 1 Radha Charan is the informant, P.W. 2 Rekha is the wife of accused-appellant, P.W. 3 Mahavir, P.W. 4 Ashok, P.W. 5 Dr. A.K. Rajvanshi, who has conducted the postmortem on the body of dece
