Gulam Rashul vs State of U. P. - 2022 Supreme(All) 1625

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 1625

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SUNEET KUMAR, SYED WAIZ MIAN, JJ.
Gulam Rashul – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondents
Jail Appeal No. 7291 of 2017
Decided on : 23-12-2022

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 383 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections-302 and 201 - Evidence Act - Section 106 - Criminal Appeal – Offence of Murder - Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – Investigation by police - Killed deceased in field by strangulation – Whether at the time of request of accused to lend him Rupees 500/-, on credit, he was present in the house or not - Held, prosecution has successfully completed chain of circumstances. The fact that what happened to victim after he was lastly seen by P.W.2- , P.W.-5- , was within knowledge of accused but he has not spilled beans about fact which was specifically in his knowledge - applying principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in aforesaid judgments and having regard to totality of facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence and manner in which it was executed or committed, Court find that conviction of appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. is proper and justified in law and impugned judgment and order is not excessive or exorbitant and no question arises to interfere in matter on point of punishment imposed upon him - Criminal Appeal allowed partly

JUDGMENT :

Syed Waiz Mian, J.

1. This Jail Appeal under Section 383 Cr.P.C. has been filed by appellant/accused, Gulam Rashul, through Senior Superintendent of Jail, Agra, against judgment and order dated 30.06.2005, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Ghaziabad, in Session Trial No. 576 of 2004, relating to Case Crime No. 37 of 2004, under Sections-302 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station-Muradnagar, District-Ghaziabad, whereby, accused appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Under Section 302 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in the event of default in payment of fine, he has to further undergo six months imprisonment. Under Section 201 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in the event of default in payment of fine he has to further undergo one month imprisonment. Both sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. Heard Shri Abhinav Jaiswal, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant/accused and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution story unfolds as under:

4. One Anand Singh-informant, on 15.02.2004 at about 1.30 p.m. to 5.00 p.m., presented a written First Information Report, at Police Station-Muradnagr, District-Ghaziabad, alleging therein that accused Gulam Rashul, who is a native of District-Samastipur, District-Bihar, is a servant of his brother Ashok. Today, he demanded Rupees 500/-on credit from his employer Ashok, who told him that he will lend the amount tomorrow and directed him to go to field to collect fodder. The accused at around 1.30 p.m. took Gaurav, son of Ashok, aged about 9 years, with him to the field but Gulam Rashul, at around 5 p.m., returned all alone without fodder. His nephew was also not accompanying him, therefore, informant and other interrogated him about Gaurav to which he admitted to have killed him in the field of Kripal by strangulation. He had also disclosed that the dead body of Gaurav was lying in the Sugar cane field. Villagers, Ashish Malik, Manoj and others had seen the deceased in the company of accused while he was on his way to sugar cane field. Gulam Rashul has killed his nephew.

5. On the basis of written First Information Report-Paper No. Ka-1, case at Crime No. 227 of 2004, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. came to be registered at the Police Station-Muradnagar, District-Ghaziabad, against the appellant/accused and the substance of First Information Report was entered in the General Diary on the same day by Head Moharrir 270-Chatar Singh, and the investigation was handed over the the investigating officer, who took over the investigation and ensued it.

6. During investigation the inquest over body of the deceased after appointing ‘Panchan’ was conducted and papers along with other formalities, were also prepared.

7. The investigating officer inspected the place of occurrence at the instance of the informant and sketched site plan-paper no. Exhibit-Ka-11, on the spot and the Investigation Officer has recorded the statements of the informant and other witnesses.

8. To ascertain the real cause of death of the deceased, the dead body of the deceased was sent to mortuary.

9. On 16.02.2004, Doctor Rajendra Prasad, had conducted post mortem over the body of the deceased and in the autopsy report he has mentioned that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of throttling.

10. The investigating officer after collecting the evidence under Section 161 Cr.P.C., against the accused, concluded that the appellant/accused has killed the deceased and in view of the collected evidence, during investigation, he has submitted charge sheet against the appellant/ accused on 04.02.2004.

11. Charges against the appellant/accused under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. were framed, by the Additional Sessions Judged, F.T.C. Court No. 2, vide order dated 01.06.2004 which has been denied by the app