IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, VINOD DIWAKAR, JJ.
Deshraj @ Baba - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1170 of 2017
Decided On : 14-02-2023
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 302, 201 and 364 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 313 and 437 – Offence of murder – Examination of accused – Held, Accused appellant is with regard to recovery of spade and bullock cart which has already been disbelieved by the court - There is neither any appeal filed against such finding by State nor we find any error in the conclusion arrived at by court below particularly as recovery of spade is after three and a half months and there are no independent witness to such recovery - Court also find force in the contention of learned counsel for appellant that specific circumstance with regard to recovery since has not been put to accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C aspect also cannot be read in evidence against accused appellant - Supreme Court in respect of case based on circumstantial evidence – Court have no hesitation in coming to conclusion that prosecution has miserably failed to connect chain of events pointing exclusively to the hypothesis of guilt attributed to the accused appellant - Except for weak evidence in the nature of recovery and circumstance of last seen - Completely omitted to consider evidence in correct perspective in light of our discussions - Inconsistency in testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 has been overlooked - Gap of 20 hours in time of last seen and expected time of death remains wholly unexplained and an alternative hypothesis consistent with the innocence of accused during such period otherwise cannot be ruled out – Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is by the accused appellant Deshraj @ Baba challenging the judgment and order dated 18.02.2017, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 779 of 2004 (State vs. Deshraj @ Baba and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 133 of 2003, whereby the accused appellant has been convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine Rs. 20,000/- and in default of fine further undergo three months additional imprisonment; under section 201 IPC for three years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of fine further undergo one month additional imprisonment; and under section 364 IPC for ten years imprisonment with fine Rs. 10,000/- and in default of fine further undergo one month additional imprisonment. All the sentences are to run concurrently.
2. It transpires that the village Chowkidar (PW-1) gave a written report, scribed by Pratap Singh (PW-2), to the police on 16.12.2003 at 10.00 AM stating that while he was going to ease himself at 08.00 AM outside the village he saw two unknown headless dead bodies in dry canal between Jaufari and Salempur Mafi and their heads were lying at a little distance and it appears that the dead bodies were brought from outside and thrown at this place. On the basis of written report First Information Report got registered as Case Crime No.133 of 2003 on 16.12.2003.
3. After lodging the FIR the investigation proceeded. The inquest started at 10.30 AM on 16.12.2003 and it concluded by 12.00 in the afternoon. It is found that the death is homicidal and for ascertaining the cause of death the dead bodies were sent for postmortem. The autopsy on the two unknown dead bodies was conducted next day on 17.12.2003. Injuries found on the dead bodies are as under:-
1. A L.W on right arm 20 X 14 cm (skin loss)
2. A L.W on the right infraclavicular region 19 X 20 cm.
3. Thoracic Inlet completely cut through & through from front to back (skin to skin) all the openings of major parts visible-trachea esophagus, big vessels. Level is C 5 (size of Inlet 17 cm X 16 cm).
Cause of death: shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries.
Duration of death: About one and a half day.
Injuries on second deceased
1. Thoracic inlet 15 cm X 13 cm front of neck to back (skin to skin) all openings of major parts visible, Trachea esophagus big vessels level is C-4.
Cause of death: shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries.
Duration of death: About one and a half day.
4. During investigation it is found that the brother of Parshottam (PW-3), namely Raju and his partner Om Prakash were done to death by accused Deshraj @ Babu in connivance with co-accused Brahm Dev.
5. It is at this stage that a written report was given by Purushotam (PW-3) and on its basis the investigation proceeded further. As per this written report (Ex. Ka. 4) the dead bodies were of the brother of PW-3, namely Raju and one Om Prakash and both the deceased were engaged in the business of selling milk and cottage cheese from the shop of one Brahm Dev. It is alleged that business of selling milk and cottage cheese was being undertaken from two different places and that sum of Rs. 80,000/- was outstanding from Brahm Dev and despite persistent demands made, the amount was not returned on one pretext or the other. On 14.12.2003 at about 2.00 in the afternoon, the accused Deshraj @ Baba resident of village Jaufri came to their house and informed the two deceased that he would ensure return of outstanding amount from Brahm Dev tomorrow, who is with him at Jaufri. The accused further stated that he would return tomorrow and that two deceased may come with him for receiving the payment. It is then alleged that on 15.12.2003 accused Deshraj @ Baba came to the house of PW-3 at about 9.00 in the morning and asked the two deceased to come with him so as to get the amount from Brahm Dev. The deceased Raju and Om Prakash alongwith accused Deshraj went on the
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra
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....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, a complete and conclusive chain establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt is necessary; mere suspicion is insufficient.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the chain of events pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused-appellant was not established based on circumstantial evidence.
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 ....
Circumstantial evidence requires complete chain excluding innocence; long time gap invalidates last seen theory without ruling out third-party intervention; open-place recoveries lack credibility; un....
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.