Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ramesh Sinha, Saroj Yadav, JJ.
Heera Lal And Another - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 381 of 2016
Decided On : 25-07-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 364, 302/149, 201 - U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Sections 2/3 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 55 and 161 – Offence of Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder - Appeal against conviction - Whether prosecution has been able to establish a chain of circumstances so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion that the allegations brought against accused persons are sufficiently proved and established – informant (P.W.1) before Police Station stated that to the effect that he is the resident of Village. In evening his daughter (victim ‘x’) aged about 5 years, while playing, went towards the house of his neighbour (convict/appellant No.2). After that, his daughter (victim ‘x’) could not be traced despite of search in village and nearby areas. It has been alleged that the son of his brother was murdered one year ago by the family members of son of his brother against whom legal action was initiated - It is well established that it was convict/appellant, who was involved in present case and has murdered daughter of informant P.W.1. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against convict/appellant and trial Court after scanning entire prosecution evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced convict/appellant for offence in question - No interference of this Court is called for in instant appeal as learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the convict/appellant by impugned judgment and order. (Para 60 and 61)
Finding of the court: The present case is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has succeeded in establishing every circumstance of the chain of events that would fully support the view that the convict/appellant is guilty of the offence. The trial court has passed the judgment under appeal, after proper appreciation of evidence, and has come to the right conclusion by means of the impugned judgment and order - Court find that the conclusion of the learned trial court that the prosecution has successfully established that the convicts/appellants committed murder of the victim is based on unimpeachable evidence of ‘last seen’ supported by medical evidence and the conduct of the appellants themselves prior to and soon after the incident - It is not in dispute that when D.W.1 Prabhudei saw a hand protruding outside a sack on 07.02.2008 at 08:00 P.M., she did not inform the police in terms of Section 39 of the Cr.P.C. but instead in her statement, she herself had stated before trial Court that the police came on the next day at 04:00 A.M. In these backgrounds, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly disbelieved testimony of D.W.1
Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, J.
1. Two accused persons, Heera Lal and Vrindavan, were tried by the Special Judge, Gangster Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Raebareli in Sessions Trial No.467 of 2012: State of U.P. Vs. Heera Lal and another, arising out of Case Crime No.20 of 2008 under Sections 147, 364, 302/149, 201 I.P.C. and Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Khiro, District Raebareli.
2. Vide judgment and order dated 24.02.2016, the Special Judge, Gangster Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Raebareli acquitted accused/appellants under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "Gangster Act") and convicted and sentenced them in the manner as stated hereinbelow:-
(ii) Under Section 364 I.P.C. to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/- each. In default of fine to undergo additional one month imprisonment.
(iii) Under Section 201 I.P.C. to undergo three years imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of fine, to undergo additional ten days imprisonment.
(iv) Under Section 147 I.P.C. to undergo one year imprisonment.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and the period of incarceration of the accused persons was directed to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment.
3. Aggrieved with their aforesaid conviction and sentence, the convicts/appellants, Heera Lal and Vrindavan preferred the instant appeal before this Court.
4. It is pertinent to mention that during pendency of the instant appeal, convict/appellant no.2-Vrindavan died, hence, the instant appeal filed on his behalf was ordered to be abated vide order dated 24.03.2022. Now the instant appeal survives only against convict/appellant No.1-Heera Lal.
5. In view of the judgments of the Apex Court in Bhupinder Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh : (2003) 8 SCC 551 and Nipun Saxena and anothers vs. Union of India and others : 2018 SCC Online 2772, the name of the victim is not being mentioned and transcribed her as victim 'x' in the judgment hereinafter.
6. At the first instance, application dated 07.02.2008 (Ext. Ka. 2) was moved by the informant Shyam Lal (P.W.1) before the Station House Officer, Police Station Khiro, District Raebareli to the effect that he is the resident of Village Pure Durgin Ka Purwa, Police Station Khiro, District Raebareli. In the evening of about 03:00 O’clock on 05.02.2008, his daughter (victim ‘x’) aged about 5 years, while playing, went towards the house of his neighbour Vrindavan (convict/appellant No.2). After that, his daughter (victim ‘x’) could not be traced despite of search in village and nearby areas. It has been alleged that the son of his brother Ganga Prasad, namely, Avadhesh was murdered one year ago by the family members of Ganga Dhar, against whom legal action was initiated. Therefore, he apprehended that due to the said enmity, these people picked up his daughter (victim ‘x’).
7. The informant Shyam Lal (P.W.1) got the aforesaid written report (Ext. Ka.2) scribed by his nephew Gyanendra outside the police station Khiro, who after scribing, read it over to him and after that informant put his signature on it and then proceeded to Police Station Khiro, District Raebareli and lodged the same.
8. The evidence of P.W.6-Constable Brij Kishore Rawat shows that on 07.02.2008, he was posted as Constable Moharrir at Police Station Khiro, District Raebareli. On the basis of written report submitted by the informant Shyam Lal (P.W.1), he prepared Chik F.I.R. No. 07/08 and registered the case as Case Crime No. 20 of 2008, under Section 364 I.P.C. He proved the Chik F.I.R. (Ext. Ka. 9) and G.D. (Ext.Ka. 10).
9. A perusal of the chik FIR shows that the distance between the place of incident and P
Delay in FIR and pre-FIR inquest not vitiating trial absent prejudice; reliable natural witness testimony, corroborated by medical/weapon evidence, suffices for murder conviction despite inconclusive....
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be reliable and corroborated; mere reliance on the last seen theory is insufficient for conviction.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the need for a complete chain of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a clear motive and reliable witness testimonies linking the appellant to the murder.
The testimonies of related witnesses must be scrutinized carefully, especially when inconsistencies exist and the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Interested witnesses, such as close relatives of the deceased, can provide credible testimony and their evidence should be carefully scrutinized but not automatically discarded. In cases of direct ev....
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
