IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD BENCH AT LUCKNOW
RAMESH SINHA, SAROJ YADAV, JJ.
Mohd. Aslam – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 530 of 2004
Decided On : 13-01-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3) – Criminal Offence – Murder - Criminal appeal preferred against the judgment and order whereby the appellant has been held guilty and sentenced with life imprisonment coupled with a fine – Whether the appellant is guilty – Held, Prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances leading towards the conclusion that the appellant/convict killed all the four deceased persons by administering poison in meat - So far as the appellant-accused is concerned the prosecution has failed to conclusively establish by cogent evidence that it was the accused/appellant who committed the murder of four deceased - Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
SAROJ YADAV, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant/convict Mohammad Aslam against the judgment and order dated 30.01.2004 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, District Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 241 of 2002, Crime No. 318 of 2001 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1861 (in short IPC), Police Station Mallawan District Hardoi, whereby the appellant has been held guilty under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced with life imprisonment coupled with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment of two years.
2. The facts in short necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under:
(ii) On 13.01.2001 in the noon Mohd. Aslam brought Buffalo meat and gave to Khairunnisa the sister of the complainant to cook. After handing over the meat he went out of the house on pretext of some urgent work. After eating that meat Mohammad Salis brother-in-law of complainant, sister Khairunnisa, nephew Ajmeri and niece Gulshan died. Ajmeri and Gulshan died on way to Mallawan, whereas Mohd. Salis and Khairunnisa died in Hardoi. He (complainant) met his sister and brother-in-law in Mallawan because at that time he was in Mallalawan. It was told by his sister and brother-in-law that Mohammad Aslam mixed poison in the meat for the reason he did not want to return the money. Before this incident Mohammad Aslam left his wife in her paternal home. He informed about the incident at police station Mallawan but no action was taken. He further informed many higher officers, but no action was taken. Therefore he moved an application under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C and requested to lodge the FIR.
(iii) It is evident from the record that on 13.01.2001 the police of Police Station Mallawan District Hardoi prepared inquest reports of all the four deceased persons on the information received from District Hospital Hardoi. The name of the persons who gave information is Krishna Kumar the ward boy of District Hospital Hardoi. This fact has been mentioned in the inquest report of all the four persons. After preparing the inquest reports police prepared the necessary documents and sent the dead bodies for postmortem examination. The police also reached at the spot and seized some part of the meat found inside the house of the deceased persons and prepared the recovery memo of the same.
(iv) After registration of the FIR, further investigation started and the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan of the place of incident and recorded the statements of the witnesses and submitted the charge-sheet against the accused appellant under section 302 of I.P.C. for killing the aforementioned fou
Ramgopal vs. State of Maharashtra
SupremeToday
Point of Law - It is crystal clear in the catena of judgement that statement of witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does not fall within the ambit of evidence. Such evidence is only for confro....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, all links in the evidence chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
There was no eye witness as to actual assault on body of deceased which lead to her death and as such, it can be said that conviction of appellant is based on circumstantial evidence.
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.