Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAMESH SINHA, RAJEEV SINGH, JJ.
State of U.P. - Appellant
Versus
Ramanand @ Nand Lal Bharti - Respondent
Capital Sentence No. 1 of 2016 Connected with Criminal Appeal No. 1959 of 2016
Decided On : 09-07-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313, 366 (1) and 354 (3) – Offence of Murder - Extra- judicial confession - Circumstantial evidence – Appeal against conviction - Whether prosecution has been able to establish a chain of circumstances so as to not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion that allegations brought against accused persons are sufficiently proved and established - Whether infirmities in investigation and discrepancies pointed out in prosecution evidence make out a ground for rejecting prosecution version was explained at length in case of State of Karnataka Vs. Suvarnnamma : 2015 (88) ACC 317 - (P.W.1) was present at his home his brother-in-law (accused/appellant herein) came at his house and told him that in intervening night he accused/appellant along with his wife and daughters were sleeping in his house. In night, at 1:00 a.m., someone knocked his door. Thereupon, accused/appellant asked that who was knocking his door but there was no response. Thereafter, he (accused/appellant) went at roof of his house and saw that among them one person was a resident of Village who fired a shot upon him (accused/appellant), however, he escaped unhurt. Thereafter, accused/appellant jumped at ground floor. At same time, one of miscreant gave a blow at his head with butt of gun. Thereupon, he (accused/appellant) ran away from there and by concealing himself in field, saw that miscreants have jumped in to his house thereafter smoke was coming out from his house.
Finding of the Court: It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the Court, upon due appreciation of entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence - While dealing with circumstantial evidence, the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea - Prosecution has proved beyond doubt that appellant has motive to commit murder of his wife and his four minor children and, therefore contention of learned Counsel for the appellant on this score is not sustainable and same is rejected also - Though there is some lapses on part of Investigating Agency in investigation but the prosecution has established case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore plea of appellant in this regard is not sustainable and is, accordingly, rejected - Prosecution has been able to established chain of circumstances, which are in themselves complete and the same are conclusive in nature and excludes all possible hypothesis except fact that it was appellant alone who is guilty of crime - Trial Court was fully justified in convicting the accused appellant under Section 302 of IPC.
Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, J.
1. The appellant Ramanand alias Nandlal Bharti was charged by the Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in Sessions Trial No. 379 of 2010 for offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Vide judgment and order dated 04.11.2016, learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced him under Section 302, I.P.C. to death and fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for one year.
2. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, Ramanand alias Nandlal Bharti has preferred, in this Court, Criminal Appeal No. 1959 of 2016 from jail.
3. Capital Sentence Reference No. 1 of 2016 arises out of the reference made by the learned trial Court under Section 366 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to this Court for confirmation of the death sentence of Ramanand alias Nandlal Bharti.
4. Since Criminal Appeal No. 1959 of 2016 and Capital Sentence Reference No. 1 of 2016 arise out of a common factual matrix and impugned judgment, we are disposing them of by this judgment.
5. Shortly stated, the prosecution case runs as under:
On 22.01.2010, when informant Shambhu Raidas (P.W.1) was present at his home situate in Village Namdarpurwa, Police Station Dhaurhara, District Lakhimpur Kheri, his brother-in-law (sala) Ramanand alias Nand Lal (accused/appellant herein), who is the resident of Namdarpurwa, hemlate of Amethi, Police Station Dhaurhara, Lakhimpur Kheri, came at his house at about 06:30 a.m. and told him that in the intervening night of 21/22.01.2010, he (accused/appellant Ramanand alias Nand Lal) along with his wife (Smt. Sangeeta) and daughters were sleeping in his house. In the night, at 1:00 a.m., someone knocked his door. Thereupon, accused/appellant asked that who was knocking his door but there was no response. Thereafter, he (accused/appellant) went at the roof of his house and saw that among them one person was a resident of Village Basheda, who fired a shot upon him (accused/appellant), however, he escaped unhurt. Thereafter, accused/appellant jumped at the ground floor. At the same time, one of the miscreant gave a blow at his head with the butt of gun. Thereupon, he (accused/appellant) ran away from there and by concealing himself in the field, saw that the miscreants have jumped in to his house and thereafter smoke was coming out from his house. He (Ramanand) reached at Behman Purwa at the crusher of Khalik as well as at Ram Nagar Lahbadi and told about the incident but no one came to help him.
After hearing the aforesaid narrated version from accused/appellant, the informant-Shambhu Raidas (P.W.1) along with his nephew Pratap reached at the house of the accused/appellant and saw that Sangeeta, wife of accused/appellant and his daughters Tulsi aged about 7 years, Lakshmi aged about 5 years, Kajal aged about 3 years and another daughter aged about one and a half month, have been murdered and their dead bodies were burning. On seeing this, the informant and his nephew Pratap started pouring water in order to extinguish the fire. In the meanwhile, accused/appellant started enjoying heat by sitting near fire in the courtyard. The informant and his nephew snubbed him saying that his wife and children have been murdered and he was still enjoying the heat. On this, accused/appellant became angry and went away from there. The dead bodies were lying there. The informant Shambhu Raidas (P.W.1) went to P.S. Dhaurhara and narrated the said incident to the police and lodged the F.I.R. at police station Dhaurhara.
6. The Head Constable Dhani Ram Verma (P.W.10) deposed that on 22.01.2010, he was posted as Head Moharrir at Police Station Dhaurhara. On the basis of written report submitted by the informant Shambhu Raidas (P.W.1) on 22.01.2010, at 09.45 a.m., he registered the F.I.R., on the basis of which, case crime No. 49 of 2010, under Section 302, I.P.C. was registered against four unknown persons. A perusal of the chik F.I.R. also shows that the distance between the place of the incid
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
