IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, JJ.
Manoj @ Bhoora – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 4644, 4645 of 2009
Decided On : 23-11-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302/34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 161, 313, 437-A – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25/4 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Offence of murder – Examination of witnesses by police – Power to examine the accused – Prosecution case proceeds on a written report (Ex.Ka.1) of first informant, who happens to be father of deceased, stating that at accused took his son, (deceased), on pretext of offering mangoes at orchard – Two accused were learning occult practices from before which was well known in village – Held, Trial court while analysing evidence on record has blindly accepted prosecution case without subjecting evidence on record on aspect of motive, plea of last seen and indulgence of accused appellants in occult practices – Trial court has erroneously placed burden accused appellants of disclosing whereabouts of deceased by relying upon provisions of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, without analysing evidence on factum that accused appellants had taken the deceased – Dead body has otherwise been found in sugarcane field and not within premises of accused appellants – Judgment of court of sessions on material aspects is therefore found wanting – Available evidence has not been subjected to careful scrutiny by court below and, therefore, finding of guilt returned by court of sessions cannot be sustained and is liable to be reversed – Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Court of Session has tried three different sessions trial together, namely (1) Session Trial No. 744 of 2007 (State vs. Vinod son of Mahendra Saini, Manoj @ Bhoora son of Mahendra Saini and Karm Singh @ Ganjja son of Neebu @ Nemnath Jogi) and Case Crime No. 191 of 2007 under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Nagal, District Saharanpur; (2) Session Trial No. 745 of 2007 (State vs. Karm Singh @ Ganjja) arising out of Case Crime No. 192 of 2007 under Section 25/4 of Arms Act and (3) Session Trial No. 746 of 2007 (State vs. Vinod) arising out of Case Crime No. 193 of 2007 under Section 25/4 of Arms Act and vide impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.2009, under challenge in present appeals, convicted all three accused appellants under section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of fine to further undergo 10 months additional simple imprisonment, as also convicted the accused appellants Karm Singh and Vinod under section 25/4 of Arms Act and sentenced them to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500 each and in default of fine to further undergo one month additional simple imprisonment. All the sentences are to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case proceeds on a written report (Ex.Ka.1) of the first informant Rakesh Kumar, who happens to be the father of the deceased, stating that on 30.07.2007 at about 02.00 PM the accused Vinod and Karm Singh @ Ganjja took his son Sheetal, aged 11 years (deceased), on the pretext of offering mangoes at the orchard. The two accused were learning occult practices from before which was well known in the village. Neetu son of Mahavir and Roshan son of Mahendra Singh are stated to have seen the accused going towards orchard with the deceased. When the deceased did not return by the evening the informant tried to locate him without success. On the next morning again attempt was made to locate the missing child and his dead-body was found lying in the sugarcane field of Laloo son of Sewa. The informant alleges that the accused Vinod and Karm Singh @ Ganjja for practising occult practices have offered sacrifice of his son by slitting his throat. His dead body was lying at the sugarcane field. Atmosphere of fear and terror prevailed in the village and nobody was allowing children to come out of their home. Moreover, on account of such fear and terror the residents were leaving the village alongwith their children.
3. On the basis of such disclosure the First Information Report in Case Crime No. 191 of 2007 was registered under Section 302 IPC.
4. On 01.08.2007 the Investigating Officer recovered a knife from accused Vinod and a dagger from accused Karm Singh, in respect of which a recovery memo was prepared and two separate First Information Reports were registered as Case Crime Nos. 192 of 2007 and 193 of 2007.
5. The investigation proceeded and a towel (gamchha) was recovered on the pointing out of the accused from the sugarcane field, which allegedly was used for tying hands and feets of the deceased while he was being done to death.
6. The inquest proceedings were thereafter conducted by Sub-Inspector Ram Kumar Sharma (Ex.Ka.9) in which cause of death was found to be injuries caused by a sharp weapon and in the opinion of inquest witnesses the postmortem was required to ascertain the cause of death. The inquest witnesses included Kawar Sain, who was the scribe of the FIR and was also the village Pradhan.
7. The investigation proceeded and ultimately a charge sheet came to be filed against three accused under sections 302/34 IPC. Charge sheet was also submitted against accused Karm Singh and Vinod under Sections 25/4 of the Arms Act. The Magistrate took cognizance in the matter and committed the case to court of sessions wherein three separate trials were registered as Session Trial Nos. 744 of 2007 (under sections 302/34 IPC) and 745 of 2007 and 746 of 2007 (under sections 25/4 of Arms Act). All the trials were
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be reliable and corroborated; mere reliance on the last seen theory is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence, which requires stringent adherence to established evidentiary standards....
A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained solely on the basis of last-seen evidence without corroborative proof and a clear motive, as established by the principles governing ....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, a complete and conclusive chain establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt is necessary; mere suspicion is insufficient.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
Circumstantial evidence, including motive and last seen theory, can establish guilt in murder cases when direct evidence is unavailable.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.