Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANOJ MISRA, SAMEER JAIN, JJ.
Charan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1171 of 2006
Decided on : 08-04-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313, 318 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Offence of Murder - Estimated time of death - Cause of death - Appeal Against Conviction -In evening deceased and accused had a fight; in night deceased’s neighbor PW-3 and (PW-4), heard noises; upon which, PW-3 and PW-4 went to spot to notice that appellant was strangulating deceased that, by time they could come to rescue of victim, she was dead and appellant escaped - Whether, in facts of the case, without medical examination of the accused-appellant in respect of his disability, trial court could have proceeded on court's own understanding of the issue, if not, Whether it vitiates the trial - There is no bar to proceed against a deaf and dumb accused on a charge of a criminal offence (Para 22).
Finding of the Court :
Appellant had escaped from spot and for several days he was absconding - In fact, a search had to be made for him and, ultimately, after recourse to coercive processes, appellant’s arrest could be secured - All these are highly incriminating circumstances which, by themselves, complete a chain of circumstances pointing towards guilt of appellant and in absence of cogent explanation, could form the basis of conviction - Whereas, to explain this chain of incriminating circumstances, nothing has come, either through cross-examination, or by way of explanation under section 313 CrPC, that appellant resided elsewhere or worked for gain elsewhere and was not present at scene of crime in night of incident - Notably, accused-appellant in written statement under section 313 CrPC has admitted that deceased was his wife and they had cordial relationship out of which they had several issues, which, in absence of any specific statement of separation, or claim of residing elsewhere in connection with work, would give an impression that appellant, as husband, resided with the deceased - Thus, court do not find a good reason to disbelieve prosecution case or to discard prosecution evidence which proves guilt of appellant in murder of his wife beyond reasonable doubt.
Results: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Misra, J.
1. This appeal is against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.01.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Court No. 1, Pilibhit in Sessions Trial No. 695 of 2004 whereby, the appellant has been convicted under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and on default of payment of fine, additional six months imprisonment.
INTRODUCTORY FACTS
2. On a written report (Exb. Ka-1), lodged by Surendra Singh (PW-1), the brother of the deceased, on 28.06.2004, at 17:35 hours, a Chik FIR (Ex. Ka-4) was prepared by PW-5, giving rise to Case Crime No. 54 of 2004, under Section 302 I.P.C., at P.S. Hazara, District Pilibhit. The prosecution case, in brief, is that informant's elder sister Banso Bai (the deceased) was married to the appellant (Charan Singh) twelve years ago; she had five daughters and a son; the appellant used to suspect and taunt the deceased of being unchaste and treated her with cruelty; in the evening of 27.06.2004, the deceased and the accused had a fight; in the night of 27/28.06.2004, deceased’s neighbours Darshan Singh (PW-3) and Parsa Singh (PW4), at about 2.00 am, heard noises; upon which, PW-3 and PW-4 went to the spot to notice that the appellant was strangulating the deceased; that, by the time they could come to the rescue of the victim, she was dead and the appellant escaped. It was claimed that after receipt of the above information from PW-3, PW-1 (informant) went to the house of the deceased to confirm the news and, upon finding her sister dead, the report has been lodged.
3. The inquest was conducted by 19:50 hours on 28.06.2004, which was witnessed by PW-1 (Surendra Singh-informant); Jarnail Singh (not examined); Satnam Singh (not examined); Puran Singh (not examined) and Resham Singh (not examined). The inquest report (Exb. Ka-2) was prepared by PW-6.
4. Autopsy of the body of the deceased was conducted at about 4 pm on 29.06.2004. The autopsy report (Exb. Ka-3) prepared by Dr. K.K. Sharma (PW-2) notices as under:
Ante-mortem injuries:
(a) Contusion 6 cm x 4 cm on upper part of neck, left side;
(b) Contusion 5 cm x 3 cm on upper part of neck, right side.
On deeper dissections:
Underlying tissues are ecchymosed; larynx, trachea, bronchial tubes are congested (sic) frothy blood and mucous.
Internal Examination:
(i) Both lungs congested;
(ii) Stomach had 150 ml of fluid; small intestine had fluid and gases; and large intestine had faecal matter and gases.
Cause of death -Asphyxia due to throttling.
Estimated time of death: About one and a half day before.
5. Charge-sheet (Exb. Ka-11) was submitted on 18.08.2006 by S.O. Rajendra Prasad (not examined) but it was proved by PW-6. After taking cognisance on the police report, on committal of the case to the court of session, on 03.03.2005, charge of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed against the appellant, which was denied and a trial was claimed.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. PW-1 (Surendra Singh) the informant; PW-2 -the Doctor who carried out autopsy; PW-3 (Darshan Singh) and PW-4 (Parsa Singh)-eye-witnesses; PW-5 (Virendra Kumar Srivastava) is the constable clerk, who made G.D. Entry of the FIR (Ex. Ka-5) and prepared the Chik FIR (Ex. Ka-4); and PW-6 (Narendra Singh Tiwatiya) -the first investigating officer (I.O.) who carried out initial stages of the investigation including preparation of the sit
Point of law: There is no bar to proceed against a deaf and dumb accused on a charge of a criminal offence.
The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellant in a rape case involving a mentally weak victim.
Evidence by a deaf-mute witness requires stringent safeguards to ensure admissibility and credibility, failing which the conviction cannot stand.
Conviction cannot be recorded on the basis of shaky evidence.
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
Murder – Non-examination of Doctor who conducted autopsy on dead body of deceased and who prepared post-mortem report is not fatal to case of prosecution.
The mandatory provision of Section 313 CrPC aims to afford the accused an opportunity to explain each and every circumstance and incriminating evidence against them, and failure to comply with this p....
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
