Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Sunita Agarwal, Shamim Ahmed, JJ.
Suresh Chandra – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4098 of 2004
Decided On : 31-05-2022
Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Sections 302 and 201 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Suresh Chandra, was convicted and sentenced for the murder of his son, Amarnath. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, alleging that Suresh Chandra, who was allegedly of unsound mind, had murdered his son and thrown the body in a railway line gutter. The trial court found the evidence of prosecution witnesses trustworthy and reliable, leading to the conviction of the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances and guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The court noted material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and the overlooked testimony of the appellant's wife, who stated that he was of unsound mind at the time of the incident. The recent medical report also substantiated the suggestion of the appellant's mental illness. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to produce evidence to complete the chain of circumstances and prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the mental condition of the appellant, and the failure of the prosecution to establish a complete chain of circumstances and guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a complete chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the duty of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The court also highlighted the importance of considering the testimony of the appellant's wife and recent medical reports in assessing the mental condition of the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.07.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court Maharajganj in Session Trial No. 19 of 2002, State Vs. Suresh Chandra, arising out of Crime No. 128 of 2002, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station Farenda, District Maharajganj, convicting the appellant and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC, undergo three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
INTRODUCTORY FACTS
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a written report dated 03.02.2002 was given by Ram Kishore, S/o Shiv Harsh resident of Gram Ranipur Chauraha, P.S. Purandarpur District Maharajganj with the averment that his nephew Suresh Chandra, S/o Mewa Lal, who was slightly deranged for about a week, went missing since night of 01.03.2002, without telling anyone. On the next day, he came at around 12:00 o'clock in the noon and took his younger son Amarnath and went out of the house quietly. The first informant along with other family members searched Amarnath in the village and nearby places but his whereabouts could not be known. When the first informant was searching Amarnath in the morning at about 8.00 a.m. on 03.02.2002, the other family members enquired from the appellant about his son Amarnath, whereupon he started doing maarpeet with them. When the villagers took the appellant to one side and asked about the child, the appellant told that he had murdered his own son. On being further enquired, the appellant told that he had thrown the dead body of the child in the gutter of the railway line near Bargadwan village. When the first informant along with other villagers went there, the dead body of son of Suresh Chandra namely Amarnath was found lying in the water. Leaving the dead body on the spot, the first informant went to lodge the report.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, a first information report was registered on the same day, i.e., 03.02.2002 being Crime No.128 of 2002 for the offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC at the Police Station Farenda District Maharajganj. The investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I. Ganesh Prasad Shukla. On 03.02.2002, brief details of offence was made in the G.D. (Ext. Ka.4). On 03.02.2002 itself, a special report was forwarded from P.S. Farenda, carbon copy of which is Ext. Ka.5. The Investigating Officer went to the spot and prepared Panchnama of the dead body which is Ext. Ka.6. The dead body of deceased Amarnath was found on the banks of railway gutter. Thereafter, inquest of the body was conducted in the presence of witnesses and for finding out the exact reason of death, Photo Nash (Ext. Ka.7), Police Paper No.13 (Ext. Ka.8), letter to Inspector Gorakhpur (Ext. Ka.9), letter sent to CMS Gorakhpur (Ext. Ka.10) were prepared and the body was sent for post mortem examination after giving custody to Constable Surendra Nath Maurya and Constable Pawan Kumar Singh. The Investigating Officer inspected the spot on 03.02.2002 and prepared site plan (Ext.Ka.11). The return of SHO was disclosed in the Rapat and accordingly, Rojnamcha was prepared, which is Ext. Ka.12.
4. The written report of the first informant was mentioned in Parcha No.1 of case diary on 03.02.2002. The written report of informant, Nakal Rapat, Nakal Panchnama and the statement of inquest witnesses namely, Uma Shankar Chaurasia, Jai Prakash Sharma, Sri Vindeshwari, Sri Bechan and Sri Ram Kishore. Thereafter statement of neighbours namely Krishna Dev Mishra, Sri Ori Lal, Rajman Yadav and Sri Nibu Lal and the statements of Shopkeeper Ram Kewal and villager Shakir under Section 161 CrPC were mentioned in Parcha No.2 of case diary on 04.02.2002. The statements of other witnesses were mentioned in Parcha Nos. 3 to 6 of the case diary.
5. After recording s
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
