Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Sunita Agarwal, Shamim Ahmed, JJ.
Suresh alias Chaveney – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. – 210, 478 of 1997
Decided On : 31-05-2022
Criminal Appeal - Murder - Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused appellants, Suresh alias Chaveney and Mukesh, were involved in the murder of the deceased, Rajendra. The informant, Roshan Lal, submitted a written report stating that the accused appellants took his brother Rajendra for buying lottery tickets and later the dead body of Rajendra was found. The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies to establish the guilt of the accused appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court convicted the accused appellants based on the testimonies of the informant and another witness, as well as recoveries made on the pointing out of accused Mukesh. However, the High Court found discrepancies and contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses and raised doubts about the recovery memos. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances and the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, thus acquitted the accused appellants.
Issues: The main issues were the reliability of witness testimonies, the validity of recovery memos, and the establishment of a complete chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a complete chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence and highlighted the importance of establishing facts beyond reasonable doubt. The court also stressed the requirement for consistency and conclusiveness in circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the judgment of conviction and acquitted the accused appellants, Suresh alias Chaveney and Mukesh, of the charges under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC.
JUDGMENT :
1. The above-captioned appeals have been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 28.01.1997 passed by the Fifth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bijnore in Session Trial No. 11 of 1995, arising out of Case Crime No. 800 of 1994, under Sections 302/201 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Shahar, District Bijnor, whereby the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bijnor has convicted and sentenced the appellants to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 read with section 34 IPC and to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 IPC.
INTRODUCTORY FACTS
2. In brief, the prosecution case is that one Roshal Lal (P.W.1) the informant, the brother of the deceased, submitted a written report dated 13.10.1994 (Ext. Ka-1) to In-charge Kotwali Shahar, Bijnor stating therein that his elder brother Surendra Singh had given testimony against Sumer (elder brother of appellant Suresh alias Chaveney) in a murder case in which Sumer was convicted. Since then the family members of Sumer were having grudges with him. For the last few days, accused/appellant Suresh alias Chaveney used to take away his elder brother Rajendra (deceased) for buying lottery tickets and was developing friendship with him. On 12.10.1994 at about 6.30 PM, his elder brother Rajendra (deceased) was standing with Raju (P.W.2) at the Ramlila ground then accused/appellant Mukesh came while pulling rickshaw on which accused/appellant Suresh alias Chaveney was sitting. Both the appellants took away his brother Rajendra in the presence of Raju (P.W.2) saying that they will enjoy the party of meat and wine at the hotel of Virendra situate at Chamarpeda as they had won the lottery. It was around 6.30 p.m., Prem Chand son of Ramswaroop and Tilak Raj (P.W.6) had witnessed the accused/appellants with Rajendra (deceased) at the hotel of Virendra.
Following day, i.e. on 13.10.1994 in the early morning at about 4.00 AM, Yadram (P.W.5) went to the house of accused/ appellant Suresh alias Chaveney to book a car and there he saw that the accused/appellants were keeping a corpse in a sack whose legs were protruding outside. Both the appellants took out the said sack from the house and kept it on a rickshaw. Yadram (P.W.5) asked them as to what was in the sack, on which appellant Suresh alias Chaveney replied him that he took the revenge of enmity. They warned him (P.W.5) not to tell about it to any one, otherwise consequences would be bad to him.
On 13.10.1994 itself, when Roshan Lal (P.W.1) and his family members were searching for Rajendra then aforesaid persons disclosed the above facts and while searching for Rajendra the first informant reached near Singhal Dharmkanta where some women, men and children were standing. He had identified the dead body of his brother which was lying behind the Singhal Dharmakanta.
3. On the basis of the written report (Ext. Ka-1), First Information Report (Ext. Ka-4) was registered against the appellants as Case Crime No. 800 of 1994, under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC at the Police Station-Kotwali Shahar, Bijnor on 13.10.94 at 9.05 AM. Check report (Ext.Ka-4) was prepared by Head Constable Ram Krapal (P.W.-8) and it has been disclosed in ‘Nakal Rapat’ and accordingly “Roznamcha” was prepared.
4. After registration of the first information report, the postmortem of deceased-Rajendra was conducted by Dr. R. K. Maheshwari (P.W.-3) on 12/13.10.1994 at 11:00 PM. The corpse of the deceased was brought by C.P. 573, Harswaroop Singh (P.W.-4), and C.P. 1109 Ramveer, to the Mortuary. In the postmortem report (Ext. Ka-2), 14 ante-mortem injuries were reported as under :-
2. Lacerated wound 2cm x1cm x scalp deep on right side of head, 6cm on above
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
