IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANOJ MISRA, SAMEER JAIN, JJ.
Pratap Singh and another - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1932 of 2019
Decided On : 27-07-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 364, 34, 302, 201, 404 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313, 437-A - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65-B (4) - Murder offence – Appeal against conviction - Suspecting foul play, missing report was lodged without naming any suspect - PW-5 got information that discovery of an unknown female body - Held, Last seen circumstance whereas body of deceased was found in a jungle naala - Distance of that spot from place where deceased was last seen alive with appellants is not disclosed specifically - Even CDRs do not reflect location of mobiles alleged to have been recovered - In such an event, reasonable probability of involvement of some one else cannot be ruled out - Thus, in a nut shell there is no worthwhile evidence to sustain conviction – Court is of considered view that prosecution has failed to prove charge against appellants - Trial Court has failed to properly evaluate and test prosecution evidence - Judgment and order of trial Court is set aside - Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 5.2.2019/7.2.2019 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 596 of 2011, arising out of Case Crime No. 1073 of 2010, P.S. Izzatnagar, District-Bareilly, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Sections 364/34, 302/34, 201 and 404/34 I.P.C. as follows :
(ii) Imprisonment for life as well as fine of Rs.10,000/- each, coupled with a default sentence of 4 months, under Section 302/34 I.P.C.;
(iii) 7 years R.I. as well as fine of Rs.5,000/- each, coupled with a default sentence of 2 months, under Section 201 I.P.C.; and
(iv) 3 years imprisonment as well as fine of Rs.2,000/- each, coupled with a default sentence of one month, under Section 404/34 I.P.C.
All sentences to run concurrently.
INTRODUCTORY FACTS
2. On 3.5.2010, Mewa Ram (PW-1) gave a written missing report, dated 2.5.2010, (Exb. Ka-1) at P.S. Izzatnagar, District Bareilly which was entered in GD as report No. 70 (Exb. Ka-3), at 21.15 hours, by Head Constable Braj Raj Singh (PW-6). The written report (Exb. Ka-1) was scribed by Brij Nand Kumar Gola (son of PW-1 - not examined). In the missing report it is alleged that on 29.4.2010 at about 8.30 a.m., PW-1 left home to attend to his duties. When he returned at 5.30 p.m., he did not find his wife Munni Devi (the deceased), aged 47 years, present. On finding his wife absent, he dialled his wife's Mobile No. 9808068517 which was found switched off. After waiting for her till 8 p.m., he made efforts to contact his relatives to ascertain her whereabouts, but could get no information about her. During search of her possessions, it was found that her bank passbook of U.P. Regional Gramin Bank, Branch Partapur, Bareilly and Rs. 5,000/- including gold chain, earrings and other jewellery articles were missing. Suspecting foul play, missing report was lodged without naming any suspect.
3. As per prosecution story on 12.5.2010, PW-5 (Rajesh Kumar Singh) got information that discovery of an unknown female body was reported at P.S. Moosajhag, Badaun. On getting this information, PW-5, with PW-1 and Head Constable Vinod Kumar (not examined) went to P.S. Moosajagh, Budaun. There, on the basis of clothes and photograph, PW-1 could identify that the photograph was of his missing wife Munni Devi's body. As a result whereof papers concerning inquest, autopsy, etc of that body were brought to P.S. Izatnagar, Bareilly and on 13.5.2010, vide report No. 33, at 10.30 hours, the missing report was converted into Case Crime No. 1073 of 2010 under Sections 364, 302, 201 I.P.C.
4. According to the prosecution case the appellants were arrested on 13.5.2010; at the time of arrest, appellant No. 1 (Pratap Singh) was found in possession of two mobile instruments of Nokia model No. 1208 and 1209, with SIM of numbers 8954197544 and 9808068517. Evidencing that seizure, a memorandum (Exb. Ka-11), witnessed by PW-1 and other police personnel, was prepared. After investigation it was found that Mobile No. 8954177544 was of Pratap Singh (appellant No. 1) whereas Mobile No. 9808068517 was of Munni Devi's son Yatindra. The call detail records collected indicated that calls were exchanged between the two mobile numbers on 25.4.2010, 26.4.2010, 27.4.2010 and 29.4.2010.
5. During investigation, on 5.6.2010 statement of Jagan Lal (PW-2) was recorded. He disclosed that on 29.4.2010, at about 11 a.m., he noticed Pratap Singh and Raju (appellants) with Munni Devi (the deceased) at Pachlore Chauraha on Rampur road.
6. After completing the investigation, on 5.6.2010 charge-sheet (Exb. Ka-13) was submitted by Pradeep Kumar Tripathi (PW-8) against the appellants. Cognisance was taken on the charge-sheet and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 4.5.2012, the Court of Session charged both the appellants with offences puni
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and others
Sonu alias Amar v. State of Haryana
R.V.E. Venkatchala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple
In circumstantial murder cases, last seen theory alone cannot sustain conviction without complete evidentiary chain excluding innocence, especially with wide time gap allowing third-party interventio....
Both appellants and deceased were not located along the same towers during the period when his wife last saw him around noon and the evening when she received an SMS on her mobile.
In a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, multiple corroborative factors, including the last seen theory and absence of alternative explanations, can establish guilt beyond reasonable ....
The court emphasized that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, a complete chain of circumstances must be established, excluding all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
When other evidence are available, non-examination of witness is inconsequential.
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in capital cases.
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.