Jiut vs State - 2022 Supreme(All) 862

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 862

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, Sunita Agarwal, JJ.
Jiut and Another – Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1703 of 1989
Decided On : 30-05-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Siddhartha Shukla, Dinesh Kumar Pandey, Ronak Chaturvedi (Ac)
For the Respondent: D.G.A., A.G.A.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 read with Section 34 - Criminal appeal against conviction for murder - Conviction of two appellants by trial court was based on circumstantial evidence, primarily the testimony of child witness and witness of last seen - The prosecution must prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and provide a complete chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime - Doubts were raised on the reliability of the witnesses, leading to a lack of substantive evidence against the surviving appellant. (Paras 22, 37, 41, 52)

(B) Evidence - Testimony of child witnesses - Courts must scrutinize child evidence for accuracy and possible tutoring; corroboration from other reliable sources is advisable. (Para 18)

(C) Criminal Procedure - Investigation - The integrity of the investigation may be compromised if not conducted independently; mere suspicions cannot replace proof in criminal trials. (Paras 47, 48)

Facts of the case:
The trial concluded that the surviving appellant was guilty of murdering the victim during a night when the body was found with signs of violent death, leading to the trial court's conviction based on testimonies that later proved inconsistent and lacking substantiation.

Findings of Court:
The court found significant doubts regarding the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the child witness and the witness of last seen, and ultimately concluded that the evidence did not meet the required standard for conviction.

Issues: The core issue was whether the evidence presented by the prosecution, primarily circumstantial and heavily reliant on the credibility of witnesses, could sustain a conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction, particularly in circumstantial evidence cases.

Result: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside, resulting in the release of the surviving appellant if not wanted in other cases.

Table of Content
1. conviction based on circumstantial evidence (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. challenge to the evidentiary weight of child witness testimony (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. doubts regarding child witness credibility (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. importance of corroboration of testimony (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. last seen theory cannot solely establish guilt (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
6. circumstantial evidence must be persuasive and clear (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
7. insufficient evidence leading to reasonable doubt (Para 38 , 40 , 41)
8. judgment overturned due to lack of evidence (Para 52)

JUDGMENT :

(Delivered by Justice Sunit Aggarwal)

1. Heard Sri Raunak Chaturvedi, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant Brij Kishor and Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4th August, 1989 passed by the Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No. 189 of 1987 whereby two appellants herein namely Jiut and Brij Kishor were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 readwith Section 34 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each.

3. At the outset, we may note that the appellant no. 1 Jiut had died during the pendency of the present appeal and the appeal has been abated on his behalf by the order dated 16.7.2019.

We are, therefore, considering this appeal only on behalf of the appellant no. 2 Brij Kishor.

4. The prosecution story began with an information given by the village Chaukidar namely Nihor on 30.3.1986 at about 7:05 AM at the Police Station Maharajganj, District Gorakhpur about death of one Pitamber, the deceased herein, resident of village Parsameer, P.S. Maharajganj, District Gorakhpur. The said information provided by the Village Chaukidar was entered in the GD Rapat No. 5 at about 7:05 AM as proved by PW-8, as Exhibit Ka-9. PW-8 further proved that he was posted on the fateful day as Head Moharrir, Police Station Maharajganj and on the receipt of the postmortem report in the police station, case under Section 302 IPC was lodged on 1.4.1986 and entered in the GD as Rapat No. 27 dated 1.4.1986 at 20:45 Hours. The original GD was brought in the Court and the carbon copy thereof was proved as Exhibit Ka-10. The inquest of the dead body was conducted on 30.3.1986, commenced at about 10:30 AM and ended at 12:00 Noon. As per the statement in the inquest, deceased Pitamber was a patient of Tuberculosis (T.B.); the body was found inside the room in the house of Pitamber; no visible injury was seen on the dead body. Black colour blood was oozing out of the mouth and spread on both sides towards the ears of the deceased. The inquest report was proved by PW-7, the Sub-Inspector posted in the Police Station Maharajganj, being in his handwriting and signature as Exhibit Ka-8. In cross, PW-7 stated that the village Pradhan Ram Preet Singh was a witness of the inquest which is evident from the report itself.

5. At this juncture, we may also note the statement of PW-8, in cross, wherein he stated that the village Chaukidar Nihor while giving information of the death of Pitamber stated that village Pradhan had suspicion about the reason of the death.

6. The other documentary evidence on record are the Supurdiginama of torch seized from the witness PW-1 Ram Preet. The memo of recovery dated 2.4.1986 was proved by PW-6, the Investigating Officer as Exhibit Ka-2, being in his handwriting and signature. Another memo of recovery dated 2.4.1986 is about the recovery of blood soaked vest of Mitthu son of Pitamber which had been proved as Exhibit Ka-3, being in the handwriting and signature of PW-6. The postmortem report proved in