Saroj Kumar Tiwari vs State of U. P. - 2022 Supreme(All) 1072

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 1072

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANOJ MISRA, SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Saroj Kumar Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2216 of 2014
Decided On : 16-08-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sudhir Kumar Srivastava, Shivajee Srivastava, Sushil Kumar Dwivedi.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 201 - Conviction under murder and concealing evidence - Appellant held guilty for murder, sentenced to life imprisonment and fines; co-accused acquitted - Circumstantial evidence established the murder of Pranesh Kumar; motive discussed involves the deceased's second marriage - Evidence submitted was inconclusive regarding direct witness accounts of the crime - The trial court’s findings were reversed on appeal, with doubts about the genuineness of recovered evidence. (Paras 2, 25, 36)

(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Legal principles require that when relying on this form of evidence, elements must create a conclusive prima facie case against the accused - The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; any reasonable doubt must favor the accused. (Paras 28-30)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The case involves the appellant, Saroj Kumar Tiwari, who was convicted of murder (Section 302 IPC) and concealing evidence (Section 201 IPC) by the trial court, which sentenced him to life imprisonment and fines (!) (!) .
The prosecution's case is primarily circumstantial, relying on evidence such as the recovery of blood-stained clothes, a sickle used as the murder weapon, and the appellant’s pointing out of these articles (!) (!) .
The deceased, Pranesh Kumar Tiwari, was found headless in a grove, and his body was identified based on clothing and photographs, despite the body being headless and without direct ocular evidence of the murder (!) (!) .
The evidence suggests that the deceased was married to the daughter of the appellant, and there was a motive related to the second marriage, which was allegedly performed secretly. However, the court found that the motive was not conclusively proved and was based on inadmissible evidence (!) (!) .
The prosecution's evidence of the appellant’s presence at the crime scene and the recovery of incriminating articles was challenged by the defense witnesses, who claimed that signatures on recovery memos were obtained under threat and that the recoveries were fabricated (!) (!) (!) .
The investigation and recovery procedures, including the arrest of the appellant and the seizure of evidence, were found to be doubtful due to inconsistencies, the absence of credible disclosure statements, and the possibility of fabrication (!) (!) .
The evidence of motive, direct involvement, and last seen together was weak or unsubstantiated, leading the court to conclude that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and not conclusively pointing to the appellant’s guilt (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that suspicion alone is insufficient for conviction and that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially given the absence of direct evidence and the possibility of alternative explanations (!) (!) .
Based on the evaluation of evidence and legal principles, the court found that the prosecution did not meet the required standard of proof and that the evidence was not sufficient to exclude reasonable doubt. Therefore, the benefit of doubt was extended to the appellant, resulting in acquittal and immediate release from jail (!) .
The judgment highlights the importance of establishing a complete and coherent chain of circumstantial evidence and the necessity for credible and independently corroborated proof before convicting an accused in a murder case (!) (!) (!) .

If you need further analysis or assistance with specific legal aspects of this case, please let me know.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments presented by both parties (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
3. court's analysis of circumstantial evidence (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
4. acquittal of the appellant (Para 36 , 37)

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Dwivedi for the appellant, Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 13.05.2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Kaushambi in Sessions Trial No. 325 of 2003 whereby the appellant, namely, Saroj Kumar Tiwari, has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced as follows: imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- coupled with a default sentence of one year additional R.I. under Section 302 IPC and two years R.I. and fine of Rs. 2,000/- coupled with a default sentence of six months additional imprisonment under Section 201 IPC. However, co-accused, namely, Anju Tiwari and Munni Devi, were acquitted from the charge of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

Introductory facts

3. A written report (Ex.Ka-1) was lodged by PW-1, a village Chowkidar, on 22.05.2000 at 11.30 hrs, at P.S. Saini, district Kaushambi, giving rise to case crime no. 145 of 2000. It was alleged in the written report that PW-1 (the informant) received information from villagers, at about 10 am, that a dead body of an unknown person was noticed lying in the grove of Daya Ram Dhobi near Habbu Nagar, Dubana; when PW-1 went there he saw that a headless body, without clothes, was lying under a Mahua tree in that grove. The chik report (Ex.Ka-5) and G.D. entry (Ex.Ka-6) thereof was prepared by PW-6.

4. Inquest was conducted at the spot on 22.05.2000 at 13.55 hrs of which an inquest report (Ex.Ka-2) was prepared by S.I. Panna Lal (not examined) which was proved by PW-2 Rajkumar. The condition in which the body was noticed at the time of inquest is reported as follows:

^^n'kk 'ko & flj tkfuc iwŒ iSj o nf{k.k ck;ka gkFk dsgquh ls cka;s eqM+k cka;s lhus ij nkfguk gkFk nkfgus eqM+k nkfguh lhus ij nkfguh Vkax nkfguh vksj eqM+k ck;ka iSj lh/kk 'ko cka;h djoV uXu voLFkk esa iM+k gSA
gqfy;k 'ko & xnZu ls Åij dk fgLlk xk;c] xksjk jax ,dgjk etcwr ftLe ÅapkbZ 5&1@4 QhV mez yxHkx 25 o"kZA
pksV 'ko & 'ko dks myV dj ns[k x;k] fuEu pksVsa gS%&
¼1½ xnZu ls Åij dk fgLlk xk;c gS ¼2½ nkfguh cktw ij /klk gqvk [kwu vkywn ?kko ¼3½ dVk gqvk gFksyh dk ?kko ¼4½ cka;k gkFk--------------[kwu vkywn ¼5½ cka;h gkFk ij dVk gqvk [kwu vkywn ?kkoA**

5. Autopsy was conducted on 23.05.2000 at about 5 P.M. by Dr. Yatindra Kumar Pathak, PW-8, who prepared autopsy report (Ex.Ka-13). In the autopsy report, following details were mentioned:

External examination:

A male body of well built, Rigor mortis is passed off from whole body, abdomen is distended. Body is in early stage of decomposition.

Ante-mortem injuries:

1. Head and neck is separated from thorax by sharp weapon.

2. A lacerated wound 4 cm. x 2 cm. Muscle deep in right upper arm.

3. An incised wound 4 cm. x ½ cm. in front of right hand.

4. A lacerated wound in area of 4 cm. x 2 cm. muscle deep in front of left hand.

5. A lacerated wound 3 cm. x 1 cm. in front of top of right shoulder.

6. An incised wound 8 cm. x ½ cm. in size in back of left forearm.

Cause of death:

Shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries.

Time since death

About two days

6. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) recovered slipper of one leg of the deceased red in colour and light yellow colour watch strap of which recovery memo (Ex.Ka-3) was prepared. The I.O also showed recovered of a semi-circular sickle having wooden handle measuring six fingers (angul); a shirt with full sleeves having blue stripes and a blue coloured jeans, blood-stained, on the pointing out of appellant (Saroj Kumar Tiwari) of which recovery memo (Ex.Ka-10) was prepared. Investigation of Case Crime No. 145 of 2000 was completed and chargesheet (Ex.Ka-12) was submitted by CO, namely, D.