Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Pritinker Diwaker, Surendra Singh-I, JJ.
Rajendra Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1087 of 2016
Decided On : 06-09-2022
Circumstantial Evidence - Murder - IPC 302, 201 - The judgment discusses the application of circumstantial evidence in proving the guilt of the accused. The court relied on confessional statements, recovery of material exhibits, and the principle of house murder. However, it found the evidence insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Rajendra Sharma, was convicted for the murder of his wife, Rani. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the confession of the accused, recovery of material exhibits, and the principle of house murder. The deceased's father reported her disappearance, and her body was later found with severe injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. It noted the absence of direct eyewitnesses to the murder and highlighted the lack of conclusive evidence linking the accused to the crime.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, the admissibility of confessional statements, and the application of the principle of house murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for circumstantial evidence to be cogently and firmly established, pointing towards the guilt of the accused. It also highlighted the inadmissibility of confessional statements given to police officers and the requirement for a complete chain of evidence to rule out any reasonable likelihood of the accused's innocence.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction of the appellant, Rajendra Sharma, was set aside. The court found the evidence insufficient to uphold the conviction and granted the appellant the benefit of doubt. The appellant was directed to be set free and to file a personal bond and sureties as per the Code of Criminal Procedure.
JUDGMENT :
Surendra Singh-I, J.
1. This appeal arises out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27.01.2016 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 6, Aligarh, in Sessions Trial No. 604/2013, State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Rajendra Sharma, arising out of Case Crime No. 1161/2012, Police Station-Gandhipark, District-Aligarh, convicting the appellant, Rajendra Sharma, u/s 302, 201 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/-u/s 302 I.P.C. and imprisonment of 3 years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- u/s 201 I.P.C. with default stipulation in both sections.
2. According to prosecution case, informant, Radhey Lal, son of late Uttam Chandra Sharma, submitted written report (Ext.Ka.1) on 21.12.2012 in Police Station-Gandhipark, District-Aligarh, to the effect that accused-appellant, Rajendra Sharma, son of Roshanlal, ran a dye factory on Ravanteela road. The informant’s son, Suraj, visited the factory for getting training in the dyeing work. The accused-appellant, Rajendra Sharma, often visited the house of informant, for calling his son to the factory. During course of such visits, accused-appellant, Rajendra Sharma, and informant’s daughter, Rani, fell in love with each other. The informant, his wife and his son had no knowledge that accused-appellant, Rajendra Sharma, was earlier married to Ballo. Accused-appellant left his wife, Ballo, and seduced his daughter, Rani, and married her in some temple about three years earlier to her murder. The informant’s daughter, Rani, started living with accused-appellant, Rajendra Sharma. Their marital relation was cordial for one year. After this period, accused-appellant, Rajendra Sharma, started torturing and beating his daughter, alleging that she is characterless. The informant’s daughter, Rani, requested the informant on phone that he may save her from the accused-appellant otherwise he will murder her as he has expelled his first wife, Ballo, after beating her. Two days earlier in the evening at 7 p.m., accused-appellant, Rajendra Sharma, had informed the informant’s son, Suraj, that Rani had left his home. If she has reached her parental home, she may be sent back. After getting this information, informant Radhey Lal, visited the residence of accused-appellant, Rajendra Sharma, and enquired about his daughter, Rani, but Rajendra could not give any satisfactory explanation about the disappearance of Rani. After not getting proper explanation from the appellant about the whereabout of her daughter, Rani, the informant searched for his daughter, Rani, at different places. On 21.12.2012 at 2 p.m., on getting information, he visited village-Bhadesi, with his son, Suraj, and son-in-law, Deepak, where he found the dead body of his daughter, Rani. After murdering his daughter, her face was burnt to make her unidentifiable.
3. On the written report of the informant, a first information report against accused-appellant, Rajendra Sharma, was registered on 21.12.2012 at 16.10 hours in Police Station-Gandhipark, District-Aligarh (Ext.Ka.4) as Case Crime No. 1161 of 2012 u/s 302, 201 I.P.C. The lodging of the first information report was mentioned in the G.D. of the case at the same time which is as (Ext.Ka.5).
4. The inquest proceedings of the dead body of Rani was conducted on 21.12.2012 at 1700 hours and inquest report was prepared as (Ext.Ka.2).
5. The postmortem on the dead body of Rani, wife of Rajendra Sharma, was done by P.W.3 Dr. K.R. Ahmad, Deputy D.D.O. (T.B. Abolition), District-Aligarh, on 22.12.2012 at 03.30 p.m. He prepared the postmortem report as (Ext.Ka.3). The deceased was average body built. Rigor mortis had passed the dead body. During postmortem proceedings, following antemortem injuries were found on the body of deceased Rani :-
(i) Incised wound 14 cm x 12 cm x bone deep present over face. Most of the facial bone, frontal bones and mandibles are fractured. Both eyes with eyeball and socket of eyeball, most of the facial bones, muscles
AI
The judgment establishes the principle that circumstantial evidence must be cogently and firmly established, pointing towards the guilt of the accused, and that confessional statements given to polic....
Convictions based on circumstantial evidence must establish a reliable chain linking the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment establishes the principles of circumstantial evidence, burden of proof, and the need for the accused to explain incriminating circumstances to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court ruled that weak circumstantial evidence and lack of motive cannot support a murder conviction, necessitating a complete chain of proof.
Section 65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act is as admissibility of electronic records.
The judgment underscores the necessity of establishing a complete chain of circumstances and the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Murder – Only on the basis of post-mortem report there cannot be conviction for offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C.
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
