Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Shiv Shanker Prasad, JJ.
Suresh Viyar – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Jail Appeal No. 226 of 2005
Decided On : 29-08-2022
JAIL APPEAL - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - SECTION 302 IPC, SECTION 201 IPC - [302, 201 IPC] - The court discussed the prosecution's case, the evidence presented, and the inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses. The court analyzed the principles of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof on the prosecution. It concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the murder of the deceased based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution's case relied on the statements of witnesses PW-1 and PW-2, who alleged that the appellant, along with two others, had murdered the deceased and hidden the body in an agricultural field.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted inconsistencies in the witnesses' statements, including the timing of events and the conduct of the accused. The court concluded that the chain of events did not exclusively point to the guilt of the accused, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecution's case based on circumstantial evidence, the inconsistencies in the witnesses' statements, and the timing of events, including the lodging of the FIR and the discovery of the deceased's body.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It applied the five golden principles laid down by the Supreme Court and concluded that the prosecution failed to exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted of the charges, and the conviction and sentence were set aside. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
JUDGMENT :
1. This jail appeal arises out of a judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Mirzapur in Session Trial No.276 of 2001, dated 09.09.2002, whereby the appellant Suresh Viyar has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default thereof to undergo fifteen days additional imprisonment. The appellant has also been convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 IPC with a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default thereof to undergo seven days additional imprisonment, with the stipulation that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the first informant Raghuveer Viyar (PW-1) worked in a mining site at Mirzapur and was living in a hutment near Sonpur Pahadi. Other workers resided nearby including accused appellant Suresh Viyar son of Chan Dev. It is alleged that on the eventful night i.e. on 25.02.2001, at about 10.00 PM, the accused appellant Suresh Viyar had a fight with his wife and he also beat her. Being a neighbour of Suresh Viyar, the first informant (PW-1) intervened and objected to the accused beating his wife and also scolded him. This act of PW-1 is stated to have annoyed the accused appellant, who turned inimical. The accused appellant threatened the first informant that he would finish his family.
The first informant, accordingly, asked his son Arjun to sleep that night in the hutment of PW-2 Rameshwar (nephew of PW-1). In the early morning when PW-1 enquired about his son from PW-2 he informed the first informant that Suresh Viyar, Puttu Viyar and Button Viyar came to his hutment armed with knife, iron rod and stone etc. at about 12.00 in the night and took away his son, who was killed by these persons and his dead body has been hidden in a plastic sack and thrown in the Arhar field (red gram) of Shyam Narayan Pandit.
3. A first information report, on the basis of oral report of first informant PW-1, was lodged at 04.40 PM on 26.02.2001 at Police Station Ahraura, District Mirzapur. Distance of the place of occurrence from the police station was 05 kilometers. The Investigating Officer reached the spot and retrieved the dead body from plastic sack and prepared recovery memo (Ex. Ka.14) of dead body; bloodstained plastic bag; bloodstained earth and plain earth. The samples collected were sent for forensic examination. The inquest followed. The inquest witnesses were of the view that the deceased died on account of ante-mortem injuries caused to him and his dead body was packed in a plastic bag and thrown in the agricultural field and that the death is homicidal. The dead body was accordingly sealed and sent for postmortem. Dr. Captain Ashutosh Kumar (PW-5) performed the autopsy on the cadaver. The autopsy doctor opined the cause of death to be asphyxia due to haemorrhage as a result of following antemortem injuries:-
2. Multiple contusion injuries variation dimension for an area of 21x16 cm on right side of back upper half.
3. Contusion injury on left side of scapula 10x3 cm.
4. Contusion injury on left side chest, front Neck, face left side. Blue to blackish colour 25x8 cm.
5. An incised wound on neck right side platysma fascia cut elliptical margin clean everted, gapping 6x1”2 cm 2cm below chin.
6. A lacerated wound on chin 1x.5 cm 4 cm below lower lip."
4. Statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded of first informant, Rameshwar (PW-2) and Gulbadan (PW-3) mining licencee, for whom they worked. In the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Gulbadan (PW-3) disclosed that the accused appellant confessed having murdered the deceased and requested him utilize his connections to save him. After concluding the investigation a charge sheet has been filed against the accused appellant Suresh Viyar under Section 302/201 IPC.
5. The concerned Magistrate took cognizance in the matter and committed the offence to the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof on the prosecution in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The judgment emphasizes the need for the prosecution to establish....
The court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a clear motive and reliable witness testimonies linking the appellant to the murder.
Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and coherent chain of events that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the duty of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and the consideration of the appellant's mental condition in criminal cases.
In a criminal trial based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Suspicion c....
Circumstantial evidence must establish a continuous chain linking the accused to the crime, and mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must provide a complete and unbroken chain of evidence that conclusively points to the guilt of the accused, failing which the accu....
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
