IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Manoj Misra, Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi, JJ
Vinod And Another - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 1507 of 2015
Decided On : 08-07-2022
Indian penal code, 1860 – Sections 364, 302, 34, 201, 404 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313, 437-A – Criminal appeal – Punishment for murder – Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence committed – Bail to require accused – Dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at time of his death – Criminal appeal has been filed against judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Mathura, in Sessions Trial, arising out of Case Crime, Police Station, District Mathura, convicting and sentencing accused-appellants – Held, Before parting with judgment it appears necessary to make some observations with regard to latches on part of the investigating officer – Very surprisingly he has not recorded statement of wife of deceased, who is a natural witness, because deceased had gone from his house with cash – Investigating officer has only recorded statements of complainant, nephew of deceased, and others and proceeded – He has also not interrogated complainant about information given in missing report, in which it is stated that after receipt of some phone call, deceased had left his house – Neither mobile of deceased has been recovered nor its call details record has been collected by investigating officer – Even accused has not been interrogated about mobile of deceased, while it is established from prosecution evidence that deceased was in possession of a mobile at time of incident – Further, from evidence on record, it is fully established that arrest of accused as shown in record by investigating officer is wholly manipulated and it has destroyed whole prosecution case – So there are serious latches on part of investigating officer and it appears that he has not performed his duty diligently and honestly – Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi, J.
1. We have heard Sri Ashok Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri Pankaj Saxena learned AGA for the State.
2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.03.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Mathura, in Sessions Trial No.254 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No.522 of 2012, Police Station Kosikala, District Mathura, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants Vinod and Karmveer as under:-
“Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- each, under section 302 read with section 34 IPC; 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-each under section 364 IPC; 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- each under section 201 IPC; and 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- each under section 404 IPC.
INTRODUCTORY FACTS
3. The Factual matrix is as follows:-
(i) Complainant Nawal Singh (P.W.-1) gave a written information at the Police Station Kosikala, District Mathura on 19.08.2012, alleging therein that his uncle Narayan Singh(the deceased), aged 60 years, on receiving a phone call, left his house on 11.08.2012 at 1.30 PM taking Rs.70,000/- with him but did not return, thereafter; and that his phone number 8683094403 is not responding. The aforesaid information was entered in G.D. No.23 at 9.10 AM on 29.08.2012 as a missing report.
(ii) On the same date, the complainant Nawal Singh gave another application at Police Station Kosikala, alleging therein that on 11.08.2012 at about 1.30 PM Narayan Singh (the deceased), the uncle of the complainant had gone to Hodal with Karmveer, taking Rs.70,000/- with him; that neither he has returned nor his phone number 8683094403 is responding; that after a thorough search, he lodged a missing report on 19.08.2012; that Vijan and Prahlad had seen Narayan Singh with his servant Karmveer, going on a motorcycle on the way to Hodal; that the complainant believes that Karmveer has kidnapped his uncle and committed murder in greed for money. On the aforesaid written information (Ex. Ka.-1) an FIR Crime No.522 of 2012, under sections 364, 302, 201 IPC, was registered at Police Station Kosikala, District Mathura on 19.08.2020 at 20.30 hours.
(iii) Santosh Singh(P.W.-10), SO, Police Station Kosikala, District Mathura, took up the investigation. He recorded the statement of the complainant. On the information received from the informer, he arrested the named accused Karmveer on 20.10.2012 at 12.05 noon from Korvan Tiraha. On interrogation, accused Karmveer confessed his crime and disclosed that he has committed the murder of Narayan Singh on 19.08.2012 with the help of his cousin Vinod for Rs.70,000/-; that he assaulted Narayan Singh with a spade causing his death and buried the body in his field; that, Rs.50,000/- which came in his share, had been kept by him at the house of his sister Lakshmi, resident of Balghadi, Police Station Kosikala; and that he could get recovered the dead body from the field as also the cash. The gist of the interrogation was entered in the G.D. on the same date at 12:45. PM The investigating officer accompanying other police personnel and Karamveer arrived at the field of the deceased Narayan Singh and at the pointing out of accused Karmveer the dead body of Narayan Singh was recovered after digging a pit. A spade was also recovered at the pointing out of accused Karmveer at about 15.30 PM from the bushes near the hut situated in the field of the deceased Narayan Singh. Its recovery memo was prepared. The investigating officer prepared the site plan of both places, took plain soil and blood-stained soil and sealed it, and prepared its memo. The body was sent for postmortem. Thereafter, the SO accompanying police personnel, Karamveer, and witnesses, namely, Bittan and Vijan, came to the village Balghadi at the house of Lakshmi, the sister of the accused Karamveer, and at his pointing out recovered Rs.50,000/- comprising 25 notes of Rs.1,0
Haresh Mohandas Rajput v. State of Maharashtra 2011 (12) SCC 56
SupremeToday
Another important aspect to be considered in a case resting on circumstantial evidence is the lapse of time between the point when the accused and deceased were seen together and when the deceased is....
Point of Law : There can be a number of innumerable possibilities which Court need not go into as it was for the prosecution to establish that the accused alone had committed the offence.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and conclusive chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence; mere suspicion is ....
Circumstantial evidence – Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible ....
Murder Charge - When a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role.
The judgment underscores that mere suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal cases, particularly when relying on circumstantial evidence.
The court emphasized that in criminal cases, mere suspicion cannot substitute for proof, and a complete chain of circumstantial evidence is essential for conviction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.