Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 1020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
Ramesh Sinha, Saroj Yadav, JJ.
Deepak Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. – 435, 407 of 2016
Decided On : 06-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi
For the Respondent:Additional Govt. Advocate, Mr. Umesh Chand Verma

The need for a complete chain of circumstances in cases based on circumstantial evidence and the principle that suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Murder - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302/34 and 201 - The court analyzed the evidence and found the convicts guilty of killing the deceased and throwing his body in a well. The court relied on circumstantial evidence and concluded that the chain of circumstances was not complete, giving the benefit of doubt to the accused/appellants.
Fact of the Case:

A missing report was filed after the complainant's son went missing. The prosecution alleged that the convicts confessed to the crime, and the dead body and bicycle were recovered on their pointing out. The post-mortem report indicated death due to antemortem throttling.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the evidence of the prosecution witnesses trustworthy and concluded that the convicts killed the deceased and disposed of his body. However, the court held that the chain of circumstances was not complete, leading to the benefit of doubt for the accused/appellants.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the evidence, the completeness of the chain of circumstances, and the identification of the deceased's body.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a complete chain of circumstances in cases based on circumstantial evidence and highlighted the principle that suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the judgment and order were set aside, and the accused/appellants were acquitted. The bail bonds of Arvind Kumar Maurya were cancelled, and sureties discharged. Deepak Kumar Yadav was directed to be released from jail, and both accused/appellants were directed to file personal bonds and sureties.

JUDGMENT :

Saroj Yadav, J.

1. The Criminal Appeal No.435 of 2016 (Deepak Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P.) has been filed by the convict/appellant Deepak Kumar Yadav and the Criminal Appeal No.407 of 2016 (Arvind Kumar Maurya vs. State of U.P.) has been filed by convict/appellant Arvind Kumar Maurya against the judgment and order dated 29.02.2016 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Faizabad in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2014, under Sections 302/34 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short I.P.C.) arising out of Case Crime No.338 of 2013, Police Station Kotwali Rudauli, District Faizabad.

2. The facts shorn of unnecessary details are as under :-

A First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) was registered at Case Crime No.338 of 2013, under Section 363 I.P.C. on 10.11.2013 at Police Station Rudauli, District Faizabad on the basis of the written report presented by Mihi Lal wherein, he stated that his elder son, Anil Kumar, aged about 18 years, went somewhere on 02.11.2013 around 08:00 P.M. Since then his whereabouts are unknown. The complainant searched for him (Anil Kumar) at his relatives' places but no information could be found. His son had a mobile No.7388080774 which was switched off.

3. The above noted information given by the complainant was entered in General Diary at No.19, at 12:40 hours and thereafter a case was registered at Case Crime No.338 of 2013, under Section 363 of I.P.C. and the Investigating Officer went to the spot, prepared the site plan, recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body for post mortem examination and after completing the investigation submitted the charge sheet against accused persons Deepak Kumar Yadav and Arvind Kumar Maurya, under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C.

4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad took cognizance of the matter and committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. The court of Sessions framed charges under Sections 302/34 and 201 of I.P.C. against both the accused persons. They both denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses :-

(i) P.W.1- Mihi Lal, the complainant;

(ii) P.W.2- Jokhawati, sister-in-law of the complainant (Bhabhi);

(iii) P.W.3- Moti Lal, witness of inquest (Panch);

(iv) P.W.4-Dr. Vipin Kumar, who conducted the autopsy of the deceased;

(v) P.W.5-Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, Sub-Inspector, who investigated the case;

(vi) C.W.1-Sub-Inspector Vijay Bahadur Singh, who proved the carbon copy of General Diary.

6. Apart from the above oral evidences, relevant documents have also been proved by the prosecution which are as under:-

(i) Exhibit Ka-1 - Written report;

(ii) Exhibit Ka-2- Inquest report;

(iii) Exhibit Ka-3 - Post mortem examination report;

(iv) Exhibit Ka-4 - Recovery memo;

(v) Exhibit Ka-5 - Police form No.13;

(vi) Exhibit Ka-6 - Specimen Seal;

(vii) Exhibit Ka-7 - Police form No.379;

(viii) Exhibit Ka-8 -Letter to Reserve Inspector of Police for post mortem;

(ix) Exhibit Ka-9 -Letter to C.M.O. for conducting post mortem;

(x) Exhibit Ka-9A -(As Exhibit Ka-9 has been marked at 2 pages so this is referred as Exhibit Ka9A) Entry in relevant General Diary;

(xi) Exhibit Ka-10 -Site plan of the place of recovery of dead body;

(xii) Exhibit Ka-11 -Site plan of the place where accused persons killed the deceased;

(xiii) Exhibit Ka-12 - Charge sheet;

(xiv) Exhibit Ka-13-General Diary related to entry about the missing report of the deceased given by complainant;

(xv) Exhibit Ka-14 -Carbon copy of the General Diary having entry regarding alteration after recovery of the dead body and

(xvi) Exhibit Ka-15 -Carbon copy of the General Diary regarding the articles recovered related to the crime.

7. After close of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the convicts/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.). Both the convicts/appellants denied the crime and related proceedings