Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 500

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
RAMESH SINHA, SAROJ YADAV, JJ.
Prakash Pasi – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2117 of 2008
Decided On : 28-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jaikaran.
For the Respondent: Smiti Sahai.

Point of Law: Evidence of the child witness and its credibility would depend upon the circumstances of each case.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 302 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 437-A - Appeal Against Conviction - Offence of Murder - Father of complainant had gone to Etawah for doing work as labourer on brick-kiln - She was in house along with her mother and younger brother and her mother was chopping vegetables sitting on a Cot in the Court-yard under the thatch - Her neighbour, who left the village along with his family since the festival of Holi, came there and started chatting with her mother sitting on same cot - Her mother asked her to bring the chilies and her younger brother went to play in the field - When she came back after taking chilies from shop, she found that her mother was lying soaked in blood by side of cot and Prakash was not there - Evidence of the child witness and its credibility would depend upon the circumstances of each case.
Finding of the Court:
Evidence on record in circumstances described above, a strong possibility was there to get appellant/convict implicated falsely in crime - No other witness except has stated that (appellant/convict) was seen with the deceased or around or near the place of incident or in village before or after incident, on day of incident - It has come in evidence of PW- (appellant/convict) has already left the village and he was not residing in village since festival of Holi - Factum of presence of appellant on day of incident in house of deceased has not been corroborated by any other evidence.
Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

SAROJ YADAV, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant/convict Prakash Pasi against the judgment and order dated 14.08.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Raebareli in Sessions Trial No. 276 of 2006, Crime No. 78 of 2006, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short I.P.C.) Police Station Badokhar, District Raebareli, convicting the appellant with life imprisonment coupled with a fine of Rs. 2000/-.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal in short are:

An F.I.R. was registered at case crime no. 78 of 2006, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Badokhar, District Raebareli on the basis of written report presented by Km. Khushboo. It was described in the written report that the father of the complainant had gone to Etawah for doing work as labourer on brick-kiln. She was in the house along with her mother and younger brother Mukesh. On 22.05.2006 at about 11 A.M. her mother was chopping vegetables sitting on a Cot in the Court-yard under the thatch. Her neighbour Prakash Pasi, who left the village along with his family since the festival of Holi, came there and started chatting with her mother sitting on the same cot. Her mother asked her to bring the chilies and her younger brother went to play in the field. When she came back after taking chilies from the shop of Ravi, she found that her mother was lying soaked in blood by the side of the cot and Prakash was not there. She raised cry, then some people of the neighbourhood came there and found her mother dead. Her throat was slit. Prakash had killed her mother due to old enmity.

3. After investigation charge sheet was submitted in the Court against the appellant/convict under Section 302 IPC. The concerned Magistrate after taking cognizance on the charge sheet committed the case to the Court of Sessions, for trial.

4. The Sessions Court framed charge under Section 302 IPC. The accused denied the crime and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined six witnesses in toto to prove its story and also proved the relevant documents Exhibits Ka-1 to Ka-14. The witnesses produced include:

(a) PW-1 Km. Khushboo, the complainant and daughter of the deceased.

(b) PW-2 Dinesh Singh, a witness of extra judicial confession made by the appellant/convict.

(d) PW-4 Dr. Sayyad Altaf Hussain, who conducted post-mortem on the cadaver of the deceased.

(e) PW-5 Constable Amar Pal, who prove the registration of FIR.

(f) PW-6 Anirudh Kumar Singh, S.H.O, who investigated the crime.

The Exhibits include:

(I) Ext. Ka-1 written report.

(II) Ext. Ka-2 post-mortem report.

(III) Ext. Ka-3 Chik FIR.

(IV) Ext. Ka-4 concerned G.D.

(V) Ext. Ka-5 Site-plan.

(VI) Ext. Ka-6 memo of collection of blood stained and plain soil from the spot of crime.

(VII) Ext. Ka-7 inquest-report.

(VIII) Ext. Ka-8 report of Investigating Officer for conducting post-mortem.

(IX) Ext. Ka-9 Photo Nash.

(X) Ext. Ka-10 Police Form No. 13.

(XI) Ext. Ka-11 letter to Chief-Medical-Officer for post-mortem.

(XII) Ext. Ka-12 recovery memo of weapon of offence.

(XIII) Ext. Ka-13 charge-sheet.

(XIV) Ext. Ka-14 site-plan of the place from where the weapon of offence was recovered.

5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant/convict under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) was recorded, wherein he denied the crime and stated that witnesses have deposed falsely. He had also stated that he was implicated in the crime falsely at the behest of one Shiv Sagar, the resident of the same village, who has terror in the village and his brother was I.G. in police. Shiv Sagar had murdered his (convicts) brother, thereafter the appellant/convict along with his family members left the village. The complainant and his family implicated him in the crime at the behest of Shiv Sagar. He examined Vinod Kumar, as defence witness, who is also scribed the written report.

6. After completion of evidence, hearing