IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, AJAI TYAGI, JJ.
Km. Sandhya Singh and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5125 of 2018
Decided On : 22-12-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 364, 302, 201, 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161, 313 - Murder offence - Dead-body of missing son – Appeal against conviction - Dead-body of missing son was found in well situated in housing campus of accused – Held, Evidence produced by prosecution cannot be used as a link to complete chain, because chain of evidence is broken on point of motive, theory of last-seen and extra-judicial confession - Moreover, it is settled law that if two views are possible on evidence adduced by prosecution in case; one pointing to guilt of accused and other to his innocence, view favouring accused should be adopted - This principle has become more relevant where prosecution seeks to establish guilt of accused by circumstantial evidence – Court is of considered view that let alone establishing chain of events which are so interwoven to each other leading to no other conclusion that guilt of accused, prosecution has failed even to prove a single incriminating circumstance beyond reasonable doubt - As such, appellants are given benefit of doubt - Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Ajai Tyagi, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.8.2018, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-V, Banda, in Session Trail No.204 of 2010 (State of U.P. vs. Km. Sandhya Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.119 of 2010 under Sections 364/34, 302/34, 201/34 IPC, Police Station-Baberu, District-Banda, whereby the appelants are convicted and sentenced for the offences under Section 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 IPC for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in defalut of payment of fine, further imprisonemnt for one month.
2. Heard Shri Vishwadeep Patel, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Shri Patanjali Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that son of the informant, Namely, Kishan aged about 2-1/2 years went missing on 24.4.2010. Next day, on 25.4.2010 a missing report was lodged by informant at Police Station-Baberu, District-Banda. On 18.5.2010, the dead-body of the missing son was found in the well situated in the housing campus of accused-Prakashveer. In the meantime, on 1.5.2010, first information report (Ex.ka1) was lodged by informant with the averment that his son Kishan was playing in front of the gate of the house on 24.4.2010 at about 6:15 pm. and some unknown persons have kidnapped him.
4. After recovering the dead-body on 18.5.2010, another report (Ex.ka3) was given at Police Station-Baberu, District-Banda in which it is averred by informant that on 24.4.2010, his son Kishan went missing from the gate of accused-Prakashveer. On that date, he had gone to the pond with his mother. On coming back, he was following his mother and started playing near the gate of Prakashveer. At that time, Prakashveer, Sandhya (daughter of Prakashveer), Mukut, Gulab and Rakesh were present inside the house. At the same time, Shankar and Jaikaran @ Fakku were going towards the house of Shankar from the shop of Mattu. They saw that Kishan was playing inside the gate of the Prakashveer and all the aforesaid persons were standing inside the gate. He had belief that aforesaid persons have murdered his son and had thrown the body in the well with the help of Dinesh and Deshraj.
5. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Search-memo was prepared. On recovery of the dead-body, inquest proceedings were conducted and the body was sent for post-mortem. Concerned doctor conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased and prepared the post-mortem report. After completion of investigation, the IO has submitted chargesheet against the accused, namely, Kumari Sandhya, Prakashveer @ Malkhan, Gulab and Mukut under Section 364, 302 and 201 IPC.
6. The case, being triable exclusively by the Court of Session, was committed by Magistrate to the Court of Session. Learned trial-court framed charges against the appellants under Sections 364, 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC. Accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
7. Prosecution examined following witnesses :
| 1. | Virendra Singh | PW1 |
| 2. | Shankar | PW2 |
| 3. | Pinki @ Sandhya | PW3 |
| 4. | Jai Karan | PW4 |
| 5. | Sangita Devi | PW5 |
| 6. | Dr. P.S. Sagar | PW6 |
| 7. | Rakesh Kumar Mishra | PW7 |
| 8. | Ashok Dhar Pandey | PW8 |
8. Apart from aforesaid witnesses, prosecution submitted following documentary evidence, which was proved by leading the evidence :
| 1. | Written Report | Ex.ka-1 |
| 2. | Recovery memo of body | Ex.ka-2 |
| 3. | Application | Ex.ka-3 |
| 4. | Search Memo of Well and House and Recovery of Skull | Ex.ka-4 |
| 5. | Affidavit of Shankar Singh | Ex.ka-5 |
| 6. | Affidavit of Jai Karan Singh | Ex.ka-6 |
| 7. | P.M. Report | Ex.ka-8 |
| 8. | Site Plan with Index | |
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere circumstantial evidence or suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
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 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 ....
Point of Law : Contradictory statements regarding extra judicial confession made by the accused/appellant, we are of the view that such type of extra judicial confession has no such value in the eye ....
Burden of proof under section 106 Indian Evidence Act, 1872, falls upon accused to prove his innocence.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to establish guilt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be reliable and corroborated; mere reliance on the last seen theory is insufficient for conviction.
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.