SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(All) 475

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Anil Kumar, Virendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
State of U.P. (State Appeal) - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Chhoti & Another - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. - 720 of 1982
Decided On : 29-04-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Govt. Advocate
For the Respondent: Nagendra Mohan,Som Narain Saxena,Wasim Ahmad

The judgment underscores the requirement to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the inadmissibility of extra judicial confession without joint trial, and the presumption of innocence of the accused.

Headnote:

ACQUITTAL - Criminal Appeal - Sections-302 read with 34 and 201 I.P.C. - The judgment discusses the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. The court disbelieved the prosecution story due to unnatural conduct and presence of witnesses, delay in lodging the F.I.R., and lack of explanation for certain events. The extra judicial confession of the co-accused was not admissible as the accused were not jointly tried. The Trial Court's judgment was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased was allegedly killed by the accused, and the body was found burnt in the house of one of the accused. The prosecution witnesses reported suspicious conduct and attempted to intervene, leading to the arrest of the accused. The F.I.R. was lodged with a significant delay, and the prosecution's case was based on unreliable and contradictory evidence.

Finding of the Court:

The Trial Court disbelieved the prosecution story due to unnatural conduct and presence of witnesses, delay in lodging the F.I.R., and lack of explanation for certain events. The extra judicial confession of the co-accused was not admissible as the accused were not jointly tried. The Trial Court's judgment was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecution witnesses, the delay in lodging the F.I.R., the admissibility of the extra judicial confession, and the joint trial of the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, the inadmissibility of extra judicial confession without joint trial, and the presumption of innocence of the accused. It also highlights the significance of natural and reliable conduct of witnesses and the need for timely and credible evidence.

Final Decision: The Trial Court's judgment was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed. The respondent-Ram Swarup was ordered to be released if not wanted in any other case.

JUDGMENT :

Virendra Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 01.01.1982, passed by 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No.382/1979 (State vs. Smt. Chhoti and others), arising out of Case Crime No.60/1977, under Sections-302 read with 34 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station (P.S.)-Kamlapur, District-Sitapur, whereby the respondents-accused (hereinafter referred to as respondents)-Smt. Chhoti and Ram Swarup have been acquitted by the Trial Court from the charges of offence under Sections-302 read with 34 and Section 201 I.P.C.

2. During pendency of the appeal, respondent no.1-Smt. Chhoti had died and the present appeal, filed against her, has been abated by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2020.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased-Jaswant Singh (hereinafter referred to as deceased) was brother of Jagdish (P.W.-1) (informant). Jagdish Singh (P.W.-1) is resident of village-Kumharanpurwa, P. S.-Kamlapur, District-Sitapur. Babu Ram (P.W.-3), Bachan (P.W.-5) and Mool Chand (P.W.-6) are co-villagers of Jagdish Singh (P.W.-1). The deceased and one Shyam Lal resident of village-Dalelnagar, P.S.-Kamlapur, District-Sitapur, since deceased during committal proceeding, (hereinafter referred to as co-accused-Shyam Lal) were inimical for last two years from the incident as they had quarreled in respect to the irrigation of their field, due to which, the co-accused-Shyam Lal was in search of opportunity to eliminate the deceased. For last one month, the co-accused-Shyam Lal was trying to have friendly relations with the deceased, whereupon the informant (P.W.-1) had warned the deceased that he would not have confidence of co-accused-Shyam Lal as he was a notorious criminal. In addition to it, there was an estrange relationship between the respondent-Ram Swarup and deceased due to dispute regarding a grove between one Saktu and the respondent-Ram Swarup wherein the deceased was supporting the cause of Saktu and Barati Pasi, who were estranged from the respondent-Ram Swarup.

4. On 17.07.1977, at about 9:00-10:00 A.M., the deceased told the Jagdish Singh (P.W.-1) and his family members that he along with Bachan (P.W.-5) was going to the house of the co-accused-Shyam Lal in order to purchase some chaff (Bhusa) for Bachan (P.W.-5) and at that time, the deceased had weared a Dhoti and Baniyan and having a Titan Crystal Watch on his wrist. Since the deceased did not return till 9:00-10:00 P.M. on that day, the informant (P.W.-1) inquired of Bachan (P.W.-5) the whereabouts of deceased, who (P.W.-5) told that the deceased had gone with him to the house of co-accused-Shyam Lal and had talked with co-accused for purchasing of chaff (Bhusa) whereupon the co-accused-Shyam Lal told that he would sell chaff (Bhusa) in 2-3 days. Bachan (P.W.-5) also informed the informant (P.W.-1) that the co-accused-Shyam Lal had taken the deceased inside his house, at that time the respondent-Ram Swarup had also come there and both of them had gone with the deceased inside the house of the co-accused-Shyam Lal. Sensing some suspicious conduct of the co-accused-Shyam Lal as he was a notorious criminal, Jagdish Singh (P.W.-1) along with Sobaran (not examined), Babu Ram (P.W.-3), Bhagwati (not examined) and Bachan (P.W.-5) proceeded to the house of co-accused-Shyam Lal. They reached there at 10:00 P.M. and knocked the door of the co-accused-Shyam Lal by asking the whereabouts of the deceased. In response the respondent-Smt. Chhoti (since deceased) told them that the deceased had not come towards her house since morning. When she was asked to open the door, she refused to do so. Thereafter, the informant (P.W.-1) and other witnesses namely Shiv Charan (not examined), Sobaran (not examined), Mool Chand (P.W.-6), Ram Swarup Yadav (not examined) and Maiku Lal (not examined), who are resident of village-Dalelnagar, made another attempt to get the door of the co-accused-Shyam L

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top