IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANOJ MISRA, SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, JJ.
Raj Kishore @ Pappu – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1443 of 2008
Decided on : 18-07-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 and 437-A - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Murder Offence – Appeal against Conviction - It is alleged that appellant used to harass deceased for money and used to pester her for money sent by her husband - On date of incident, (PW-1) and his wife (PW-2) came to know that accused-appellant was assaulting Anima - On getting information, informant and his wife Anita, rushed to Anima’s house - There they noticed that accused-appellant was coming out of hut on first floor of house and running away - When they went up-stairs, they noticed that Anima’s body was lying with injury marks on her neck - FIR was lodged by alleging that accused-appellant has killed Anima – Held, Court notice that police station where report was lodged is at a short distance of five kilometres from spot - FIR though is within 4 and ½ hours of alleged occurrence but that time is sufficient to deliberate and implicate a person on basis of suspicion - In view of analysis and discussion above, Court is of view that prosecution has failed to prove charge against appellant beyond pale of doubt therefore, this is a fit case where accused-appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt - Judgment and order of trial court convicting and sentencing appellant is set aside - Accused-appellant is acquitted of charge for which he has been tried and convicted - It is reported that appellant is in jail - He shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless warranted in any other case subject to compliance of provisions of Section 437-A CrPC to satisfaction of trial court – Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. We have heard Sri Amit Tripathi for the appellant; Sri Amit Sinha, learned AGA, for the State and have perused the record.
2. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 21.02.2008, passed by Sessions Judge, Etah in Sessions Trial No.655 of 2003, arising out of Case Crime No.62 of 2003, police station Bagwala, district Etah, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and punished with imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-coupled with a default sentence of two years R.I.
INTRODUCTORY FACTS
3. The FIR of the case was lodged by Virendra Singh (PW-1) vide written report (Exb.Ka-1) dated 23.07.2003 scribed by Rahees Ahmad (not examined), which was registered as Case Crime No.62 of 2003 at police station Bagwala, district Etah on 23.07.2003 at 18.20 hrs. The GD entry (Exb.Ka-3) of the written report and the chik FIR (Exb.Ka-2) was prepared by PW-3 at the time and date specified. The allegation in the FIR is to the effect that informant’s sister-in-law Anima (the deceased) was married to Narendra. Narendra used to work as a labour in Delhi whereas his elder brother Raj Kishore @ Pappu (the accused-appellant) used to stay in the village and was addicted to liquor. It is alleged that the appellant used to harass the deceased Anima for money and used to pester her for money sent by her husband. According to the allegations, few days before the incident, Narendra (husband of the deceased) had sent money to Anima. The accused-appellant asked Anima for the money. When Anima refused, she was assaulted. On 23.07.2003 i.e. the date of the incident, the informant (PW-1) and his wife Anita (PW-2) came to know that the accused-appellant was assaulting Anima. On getting information, the informant and his wife Anita, at about 2.00 pm, rushed to Anima’s house. There they noticed that the accused-appellant was coming out of the hut on the first floor of the house and running away. When they went up-stairs, they noticed that Anima’s body was lying with injury marks on her neck. The FIR was lodged by alleging that the accused-appellant has killed Anima.
4. After registration of the report, inquest was conducted at the spot. After completing the inquest by about 22.00 hrs on 23.07.2003, inquest report (Exb.Ka-5) was prepared by PW-5. The body of the deceased was sealed and dispatched for autopsy. The autopsy was conducted by PW-4 at about 2.30 pm on 24.07.2003. The autopsy report (Exb.Ka-4) notices :
Well built body. Rigor Mortis passed off from upper extremities and present in lower extremities. Face, neck and upper part of chest congested. Abdomen distended (sic) bloated.
(i) Abraded contusion 2 cm x 1.25 cm, right side of neck anteriorly on upper part. Underlying tissues congested.
(ii) Two abraded contusions in a row on left side of neck upper part anteriorly. Each 1.75 cm x 1.25 cm. Underlying tissues congested.
Internal Examination :
Larynx/Bronchi – Congested. Both cornua of hyoid bone fractured.
Lungs – Congested.
Abdomen – Stomach full of un-identified food material.
Small Intestine – chyme and gases.
Large Intestine -gases and faecal matter.
Cause of Death -death is due to asphyxia as a result of throttling on account of AMI.
Estimated time of death – about one day before.
5. Investigation was conducted by PW-5 who visited the spot, conducted inquest, prepared papers for autopsy, prepared site plan (Exb.Ka-9) at the behest of PW-2, recorded statement of witnesses and, after carrying out various stages of investigation, submitted charge-sheet (Exb.Ka-10) against the accused-appellant. After taking cognizance on the charge-sheet, the case was committed to the court of session.
6. The court of session vide order dated 11.02.2004 framed charge of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC against the appellant. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
7. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, thei
In circumstantial evidence cases, a complete chain of evidence must be established to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, regardless of the presence of motive.
If the deceased had died on the previous day then it cannot be believed that the informant i.e. the PW-5 and the other members of the family including the PW-1 were not aware of the actual incident.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a continuous chain linking the accused to the crime, and mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
When FIR is delayed, in absence of proper explanation, courts must be on guard and test evidence meticulously to rule out possibility of embellishments in prosecution story.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof on the prosecution in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The judgment emphasizes the need for the prosecution to establish....
Direct eyewitness testimony sufficient for murder conviction under Section 302 IPC despite no motive; absence of motive not fatal if evidence reliable and conclusive.
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.