Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2350
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
GOVIND MATHUR, CJ., VIVEK VARMA, J.
Shiv Singh and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2407 of 1983
Decided On : 08-08-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Satish Trivedi, Ajay Kumar Pandey.
For the Respondent: Jai Narain.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a complete chain of circumstances to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. The judgment emphasized the importance of conclusive evidence and the credibility of witnesses in establishing guilt for specific charges.
Headnote:
JUDGMENT : Criminal Trespass - Indian Penal Code - Section 452, Section 302/34 - The court examined the correctness of the judgment dated 19.09.1983 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in Sessions Trial No. 186 of 1982. The court discussed the factual matrix of the case, the evidence presented, and the arguments made by both the prosecution and the defense. It highlighted the discrepancies in the investigation, the lack of conclusive evidence, and the failure to establish a complete chain of circumstances to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that while the evidence was adequate to establish criminal trespass and assault, it was not sufficient to prove the accused's guilt for the murder charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As a result, the court set aside the conviction under Section 302/34 but affirmed the conviction under Section 452, modifying the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a first information report registered for theft and murder. The prosecution presented evidence and witnesses, including eye-witnesses, to support the charges of criminal trespass and murder. The defense refuted the evidence and argued that the case was based on circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented was not sufficient to establish the accused's guilt for the murder charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, it concluded that the evidence was adequate to establish criminal trespass and assault, leading to the affirmation of the conviction under Section 452.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to prove the accused's guilt for the charges of murder and criminal trespass. The discrepancies in the investigation and the credibility of the eye-witnesses were also significant issues in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of a complete chain of circumstances to establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the murder charge. It emphasized the discrepancies in the investigation, the lack of conclusive evidence, and the failure to establish the accused's presence at the time of the murder. However, the evidence was deemed adequate to establish criminal trespass and assault, leading to the affirmation of the conviction under Section 452.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code but affirmed the conviction under Section 452, modifying the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants.
ORDER :
1. To examine correctness of the judgment dated 19.09.1983 passed by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in Sessions Trial No. 186 of 1982, instant appeal is preferred.
2. By the judgment impugned, learned trial Court recorded conviction of the accused- appellants for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence to undergo life term imprisonment. Conviction of the accused-appellants for an offence punishable under Section 452 Indian Penal Code has also been recorded and for that, the accused-appellants have been convicted to undergo imprisonment for a term of four years.
3. In brief, factual matrix of the case is that on 21.02.1982, a first information report was registered at Police Station Chakar Nagar, District Etawah at the instance of one Sri Bachchu Singh S/o Puran Singh Thakur. The contents of the first information report are as follows:-
"It is humbly submitted the theft had taken place at the places of Judawan Singh and Jageshwar on 11.10.81 in the village of the complainant in which Shiv Singh S/o Lal Singh and Balveer S/o Shiv Singh and Shivnath Nai of the village itself were identified at the time of the theft. They had been challaned in this case and after getting bail they had been living outside at their respective relatives' places. Shiv Singh, Balveer Singh and Shivnath Nai have threatened several times that - we would see you people if you do not compromise in the case. However, we had rejected to compromise. In the evening at about 6.00 pm on 20.02.82 due to this animosity (Sic.) Shiv Singh and Balveer Singh armed with guns and Shivnath Nai accompanied with another man armed with country made pistol came at the house of Parwat Singh and began to assault Parwat Singh. Parwat Singh managed to run away, thereafter, came to the house of Jageshwar and as my brother was sitting at the door, he was challenged. My brother rushed into the house and the accused persons by saying, Aaj sale ko jaan se maar denge. (Today the bastard shall be done to death.), intruded inside. In the meantime the sounds of two bullet shots came from the house and my brother screamed - Mujhe Maar dala. (I have been killed). On hearing the noise I myself and Judawan Singh s/o Arjun Singh, Badan Singh s/o Judawan Singh, Baijnath s/o Mohan Singh, (sic) s/o Hameer Singh, Parwat Singh s/o Chhattar Singh of my village and my Bhabhi Devkali w/o Jageshwar Singh and Maharani w/o Bachchu Singh and other people of the village reached on the spot while the accused persons namely Shiv Singh s/o Lal Singh and Balveer Singh s/o Shiv Singh and Shivnath Nai and another person of unknown name and address (proof of identity?) emerging out of the house, fled towards the west along the river bank through the Beehad. Though a chase was given but for the fear of gun we returned and going to my brother's house we found that my brother was lying dead in the Kothari (Room). (I) could not come in the night due to fear. I have come to the Police station in the morning. Kindly lodge the report and take proper action.
Scribe Ram Singh Kushwah, Chakar Nagar, Etawah.
Dated 21.02.82."
4. On basis of the contents aforesaid, the police commenced investigation for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, an inquest report was prepared, the corpus of the deceased Jageshwar Singh was subjected to autopsy, the statement of relevant witnesses were recorded as per provisions of Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure and other relevant papers were prepared. After completing the investigation, a police report as per provisions of Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure was filed before the Court competent. The matter being triable by the Court of Sessions was committed to the Sessions Court. After hearing the accused, charges were framed by the Court relating to commission of offence under Sections 452 and 302/34 Indian Penal Code. On denial of the same, the trial commenced as desi
