Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, JJ.
Rajveer Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 6495, 6497 of 2017
Decided On : 11-04-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302, 34, 201, 406, 504, 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313, 125, 161 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 3, 4 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section-106 - Murder offence - Administering poison – Appeal against conviction - Pooja has been killed by her parents, brother by forcibly administering poison to her and just to falsely implicate him, they initially planned to bring dead body of Pooja at his house – There is no documentary evidence which could establish alleged recovered ashes and burnt bones belong to Pooja. [Para 25]
Finding of the Court: There is no evidence which connects appellants with death of deceased - As PW-1 was not eye witness and other alleged eye witness who were source of information to PW-1 did not support prosecution story and even there is no documentary evidence which could establish alleged recovered ashes and burnt bones belong to Pooja - Even, memo of recovery (Ext Ka.6) of ashes and part of burnt bones is not reliable because same was not signed by appellants even same was not proved by SDM under whose direction and supervision above memo recovery was prepared - Prosecution has also failed to establish complete chain of circumstances - Judgement of Sessions Judge is not based on any conclusive evidence but, simply on basis of presumption and circumstantial evidence which itself was not sufficient - Therefore, Court is of considered opinion that prosecution could not prove its case against appellants beyond doubt - Therefore, judgement and order passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) is set aside and appellants are acquitted from charges.
Result: Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.
1. Heard Sri Man Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.
2. Present two appeals were filed against the judgement and order dated 28.10.2017 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Court No.3, Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No.271 of 2012 (State Vs. Rajveer Singh and another) by which both the appellants were awarded life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.20,000/- each, under Section-302 read with Section 34 IPC and in case of non-payment of fine they would further undergo two years incarceration. Appellants were also imposed six months imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section-201 IPC and in case of non-payment of fine, they would further undergo one year imprisonment.
Prosecution Case
3. As per the prosecution case, first informant Harbir Singh Arya Advocate (PW-1) had given a Tehrir dated 20.10.2011 to Station House Officer, Police Station-Narora, District-Bulandshahr stating therein that his son Lavkesh was married to Pooja, daughter of Rajveer resident of village-Kamalpur in the year 2009. Since, the date of marriage Smt. Pooja refused to live with his son Lavkesh and she has also lodged case under dowry prohibition act as well as for maintenance against him as well as his family. On 18.10.2011 at 9:30 pm, he received a phone call from Gajraj Singh, son of Banshi Singh, resident of Ganaura Nagli that his daughter-in-law Smt. Pooja has been killed by her parents, brother and Rahisuddin by forcibly administering poison to her and just to falsely implicate him, they initially planned to bring the dead body of Pooja at his house. When they could not get chance, they disposed off the dead body of Pooja by burning it. After receiving the aforesaid information, first informant, Harbir Singh had given information of this incident to SP Sri R.S. Rathore on his mobile phone. It was further mentioned that he could not register the case because of the fear of accused persons.
4. After receiving the aforesaid information, FIR was registered in case crime no.252 of 2011, under Sections-302, 201 IPC on 20.10.2011 at 10:50 am against Rajveer as well as mother and brother of Pooja and also against Rahisuddin.
5. During investigation, police prepared site plan of place of incident where the deceased was administered poison as well as the place where ashes and bone of dead body of Pooja was recovered from and recovery memo for recovering the ashes and bone was also prepared and thereafter, ashes and other remains along with soil of the place of incident was also sent for chemical examination and thereafter, on the basis of available evidence, charge-sheet dated 20.01.2022 under Sections-302 and 201 IPC was filed against the present appellants and charge-sheet against the other co-accused persons namely Pawan and Roopwati was also filed on 21.03.2012, under Sections-302 and 201 IPC before the concerned court. Appellants were committed to Sessions court on 13.03.2012 and also the case of other co-accused persons on 22.07.2012. Thereafter, the Sessions court summoned the accused persons and these accused persons also appeared before the Sessions court. Thereafter, after hearing the Assistant District Government Counsel as well as Defence counsel, charges were framed against the present appellants under Section-302 read with Sections-34 and 201 IPC in Sessions Trial No.271 of 2012. The charges were also framed against other co-accused persons namely, Pawan and Smt. Roopwati, under Section-302 read with Sections 34 and 201 IPC on 27.01.2014 for which accused persons denied and demanded trial.
Prosecution Evidence
6. To prove its case, prosecution produced first informant Harbir Singh as PW-1, Budhh Pal Singh as PW-2, Nanak as PW-3, Bishan Singh as PW-4, SI Tezvir Singh as PW-5, (chik FIR and GD writer), SI Naresh Kumar (Investigating Officer) as PW-6 and documentary evidence, the Tehrir report (Ext Ka-1), chik FIR (Ext Ka-2), GD (Ext
SupremeToday
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must conclusively establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; any gaps can benefit the accused.
Circumstantial evidence must be fully established and form a complete chain, with no reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt for a conviction to be upheld.
Murder – Only on the basis of post-mortem report there cannot be conviction for offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C.
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that excludes any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt, failing which the accused is enti....
Circumstantial evidence must establish a conclusive chain consistent with the accused's guilt; suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal convictions.
The court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a clear motive and reliable witness testimonies linking the appellant to the murder.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
