IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Kallu Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1447, 2710 of 2013
Decided On : 06-12-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 364, 302, 201 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 207, 313 – Offence of Murder – Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder – Appeals emanate from judgment and order Additional Sessions Judge Court arising out of Crime, District Kaushambi whereby appellants were convicted – Held, Court prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellants – Circumstances said to have been proved do not unerringly indicate guilt of appellants cannot be convicted and sentenced for aforesaid charges – Learned trial court did not make proper appreciation of evidence but convicted appellants by mis-appreciation of evidence on record which cannot be sustained in eye of law judgment and order appellants are acquitted of all charges – Appeals are allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. These appeals emanate from the judgment and order dated 13.02.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6 Kaushambi in S.T. No. 152 of 2004 (State vs. Kallu Yadav and Others) arising out of Crime No. 153 of 2004, under Section 364, 302, 201 I.P.C. Police Station Puramufti, District Kaushambi whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 302 I.P.C. for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 201 I.P.C. for a period of 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- and under section 364 I.P.C for a period of 5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/- by each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo for period of one month simple imprisonment. All the sentences are to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that informant Smt. Sudha Devi wife of Sri Baijnath Yadav was resident of the Village Chhabilwa, Police Station Puramufti, District Allahabad (now Kaushambi). On 17.06.2004, the deceased Phoolchand Yadav, son of the informant, was sitting on the board (takht) lying in the varandah at about 12o'clock in the noon. In the meantime, Kallu Yadav known to the deceased came there with smiling face at which the deceased also smiled and both of them went together. The deceased did not return to his house and searches were made but ended unsuccessful, as a result, missing report was filed at the Police Station Puramufti on 26.06.2004 by the informant, which was entered into G.D. as report No. 19 dated 26.06.2004. Later on, Kallu Yadav and Makhan Pasi were interrogated by the police in which they disclosed that they had committed the murder of the deceased Phoolchand Yadav and buried his dead body near the puddle behind the house where appellant Kallu Yadav lived. At the instance of both the appellants, the dead body of the deceased was recovered by digging the place where it was buried by them. It was identified by the informant as dead-body of her son Kallu Yadav. The case was converted as Crime No. 153 of 2004, under Section 364, 302, 201 I.P.C. and investigation was handed over to Sub Inspector D.K. Saini.
3. The inquest of the deceased was conducted by Sub Inspector D.K. Saini and other papers were prepared, the dead body was sealed and handed over to Constable Kamlakant and Krishnakant to carry it for post-mortem.
4. The post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased Kallu Yadav was conducted on 30.07.2004 at 2:30 P.M. by Dr. R.K. Dubey Orthopaedic Surgeon District Hospital Allahabad who mentioned in the post-mortem report that the dead body was brought by constable Kamlakant and Krishnakant in a sealed bundle sent by the Station House Officer, Police Station Puramufti and also affirmed the fact that seal was found intact and correct.
5. The findings recorded in the post-mortem report of the deceased Phoolchand Yadav are as under:
6. The investigating officer D.K. Saini recorded the statements of witnesses and inspected the place of occurrence, prepared the site plan relating to the place where from the deceased was taken away by the appellant Kallu Yadav and the place wherefrom the dead body was recovered. After recording the statements of the witnesses conversant to the facts of the case he found prima facie case made out under Section 364, 302, 201 I.P.C. against these appellants thereafter, filed charge sheet before the court concerned. The cognizance of the offences was taken by the learned court concerned who provided copies of the prosecution papers to the appellants in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and committed
Another important aspect to be considered in a case resting on circumstantial evidence is the lapse of time between the point when the accused and deceased were seen together and when the deceased is....
Sections 26 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him.
Circumstantial evidence – Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible ....
Criminal Law – Appeal against conviction – Theory of last seen – Reliability of - The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between point of time when Accused and deceased were seen las....
The prosecution failed to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the reversal of the death penalty.
The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural safeguards for evidence recovery must be strictly adhered to for admissibility.
The judgment established the importance of last seen evidence, recovery of evidence at the instance of the accused, and the application of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in cases based on circ....
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.