Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
RAMESH SINHA, SAROJ YADAV, JJ.
Kali Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 525, 1024 of 2018
Decided On : 16-08-2022
MURDER - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302/34 and 201/34 - The court discussed the evidence and concluded that the deceased was killed by the husband, Kali Prasad, by assaulting her in her stomach, leading to her unconsciousness and subsequent hanging. The involvement of the other convicts, Parsu Ram and Raj Patti, could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, leading to their acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Neelam, was married to Kali Prasad and was allegedly tortured by him, his mother, and father for not having a child. She was found dead in their house, and the prosecution alleged that she was killed by the convicts and then hanged to make it look like suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found Kali Prasad guilty of killing the deceased and sentenced him to life imprisonment. However, the involvement of Parsu Ram and Raj Patti could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, leading to their acquittal.
Issues: The main issue was to determine the culpability of the convicts in the death of the deceased. The court had to assess the evidence to establish the guilt of each convict.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that when the accused fails to offer a plausible explanation for the cause of death, it is a strong circumstance indicating their guilt. The burden of proving the fact especially within the knowledge of the accused lies on them.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence of Parsu Ram and Raj Patti were set aside, and they were acquitted. Kali Prasad's appeal was dismissed, and he was ordered to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court.
JUDGMENT :
SAROJ YADAV, J.
1. The Criminal Appeal No. 1024 of 2018 (Kali Prasad vs. State of U.P.) has been filed by the convict/appellant Kali Prasad and Criminal Appeal No. 525 of 2018 (Parsu Ram and Another vs. State of U.P.) has been filed by the convicts/appellants Parsu Ram and Smt. Raj Patti against the judgment and order dated 08.03.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, (1st), Ambedkar Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 189 of 2010 (State vs. Kali Prasad and Others), arising out of Crime No. 727 of 2010, under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short I.P.C.) Police Station Ahirauli, District Ambedkar Nagar.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of these appeals in short are as under:
3. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against Kali Prasad, Parsu Ram and Raj Patti, under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of I.P.C. The concerned Magistrate after taking cognizance committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. The court of Sessions framed the charges under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of I.P.C. against convicts/appellants. They all denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined following witnesses:
| (i) | PW-1 | Ramcharitra |
| (ii) | PW-2 | Chhati Ram |
| (iii) | PW-3 | Jitendra Kumar, the complainant |
| (iv) | PW-4 | Ramprasad, the witness of inquest |
| (v) | PW-5 | Omprakash Verma |
| (vi) | PW-6 | Head Constable Bantesh Bahadur Singh |
| (vii) | PW-7 | Inspector Baijnath Dubey, the Investigating Officer |
| (viii) | PW-8 | Dr. Omkarnath Verma, who conducted the postmortem examination |
Apart from the oral evidence, relevant documents have also been proved by the prosecution and the exhibits are as under:
| (i) | Exhibit Ka-1 | Written report |
| (ii) | Exhibit Ka-2 | Primary information given by the complainant |
| (iii) | Exhibit Ka-2A | Inquest report |
| (iv) | Exhibit Ka-3 | Chick F.I.R. |
| (v) | Exhibit Ka-4 | Carbon copy of the concerned General Diary |
| (vi) | Exhibit Ka-5 | Letter to C.M.O. |
| (vii) | Exhibit Ka-6 | Specimen seal |
| (viii) | Exhibit Ka-7 | Letter to C.M.O. for handing over the clothes of the deceased |
| (ix) | Exhibit Ka-8 | Police Form No. 379 |
| (x) | Exhibit Ka-9 | Police Form No. 13 |
| (xi) | E | |
The burden of proving the fact especially within the knowledge of the accused lies on them, and failure to offer a plausible explanation for the cause of death is a strong circumstance indicating the....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in homicide cases, relying on clear circumstantial evidence while providing plausible alternative explanations.
The necessity of proving the cause of death beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal trial.
Criminal Law – Offence of Murder - Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - Prosecution has succeeded in establishing other circumstances in chain raising a strong presumption of guilt ag....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence to establish guilt, the burden on the accused to explain facts within his special knowledge, and the import....
The court reinforces that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if deemed truthful, voluntary, and corroborated by reliable evidence.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of credible evidence and the burden of proof on the prosecution in criminal cases.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the reliability of witness testimonies, and the application of the Last Seen Together Theory were central to the judgment. The court emphasized the need fo....
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
