Gaffer Alias Kana VS State of U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sunita Agarwal, Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, JJ.
Gaffer Alias Kana and another – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. –Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. – 4540 & 4541 of 2014
Decided On : 30-05-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A.V. Chaurasia, Amit Daga, D.S. Khan, Pawan Singh Pundir
For the Respondent: Pankaj Bharti

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 364, 201, read with Section 34 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25/4 - Conviction for murder and abduction - Convictions of appellants set aside due to lack of conclusive evidence; witnesses presented inconsistent testimonies and failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances leading to guilt. (Paras 1, 83, 86)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Prosecution's burden of proof - It is the prosecution's responsibility to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of strong evidence in favor of the accused negates any assumption of guilt. (Paras 76, 80)

Facts of the case:
Appeals arise from the convictions of the appellants for abducting and murdering a child, Talib, with the body found on a subsequent date. The prosecution relied on witness statements, which turned inconsistent and weak upon scrutiny. The first informant was the grandfather, who alleged enmity amidst family relations. (Paras 1, 60)

Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, leading to their acquittal. The evidence was found to be not credible or complete for conviction. (Paras 83, 87)

Issues: Whether sufficient evidence was present to prove the guilt of the appellants and the credibility of witness testimonies in establishing a connection to the crime. (Paras 76, 80)

Ratio Decidendi: Prosecution did not provide a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to exclude every hypothesis but guilt. The credibility of testimonies was deeply flawed, leading to a reasonable doubt regarding the appellants' guilt. (Paras 76, 79)

Result: Appeals allowed; convictions overturned and appellants acquitted.

Table of Content
1. overview of case and procedural details. (Para 1 , 3)
2. circumstances leading to fir and discovery of the body. (Para 4 , 21 , 28)
3. prosecution burden not met with definitive evidence. (Para 57 , 61 , 70)
4. prosecution failure to establish guilt leads to acquittal. (Para 82)
5. final decision rendered in favor of appellants. (Para 85 , 87 , 88)

JUDGMENT :

Sunita Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Diwan Saifullah Khan learned counsel for the appellants in both the connected appeals, Sri Pankaj Bharti learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Patanjali Mishra learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.

2. At the outset, it may be noted that the appellant No.1 Gaffar @ Kana son of Niaz Ali had died and the appeal on his behalf has been abated. The appeal, thus, survives on behalf of three appellants namely Imran, Farman and Buddhu.

3. The present appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 03.11.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.15, Muzaffar Nagar in S.T. No.842 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No.17 of 2011 under Section 364 , 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Thana Bhawan, District Muzaffar Nagar connected with S.T. No.843 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No.214 of 2011 under Section 25 /4 of ARMS ACT , Police Station Thana Bhawan, District Muzzafar Nagar whereby four appellants in two connected appeals have been convicted under Section 364 , 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 IPC and the accused-appellant Imran has also been convicted under Section 25 /4 ARMS ACT . The accused persons have been awarded sentence of life imprisonment with Rs.10,000/-each, for the offence under Section 364 IPC; The default punishment for which is 10 months additional imprisonment for each accused. Under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, the appellants have been sentenced for life imprisonment with Rs.10,000/-fine each; the default punishment for each accused is 10 months additional imprisonment. The appellants have been sentenced for 5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-each for the offence under Section 201 IPC; the default punishment of which is 5 months additional imprisonment. The accused-appellant Imran has been sentenced for one year imprisonment with Rs.5000/-fine under Section 25 /4 ARMS ACT , the default punishment for which is 5 months additional imprisonment. All the sentences are to run concurrently.

4. The prosecution case starts with the first information report lodged on 14.01.2011 at about 11.05 AM for the incident occurred on 13/14-01-2011, between 04.00 PM to 09.00 AM. The written report of the occurrence was lodged by Yunus son of Gafoor with the assertion that his grandson Talib was missing from his house since 04.00 PM on 13.01.2011 and while they were searching the dead body of Talib was found on 14.01.2011 at about 09.00 AM in the field of Iqbal son of Ummed Ali @ Medu. Someone had killed him by slashing his neck. The body was lying on the spot.

5. The check report was prepared by PW-4, the Head Moharir posted in P.S. Thana Bhawan on the basis of the written report submitted by Yunus. It is proved by PW-4 that the check report was in his handwriting and signatures, marked as Exhibit Ka-2-A. The G.D. Rapat No.15 at 11.05 AM of the lodging of the report was prepared in the same process and the carbon copy of which on record was proved by PW-4 from the original G.D. brought in the Court as Exhibit Ka-3. The check report of case crime No.214 of 2011 under Section 25 /4 ARMS ACT against Imran was also prepared by PW-4 and proved as Exhibit Ka-4, being in his handwriting and signatures. The G.D. entry of the same namely G.D. Rapat No.25 at 12.30 PM was proved as Exhibit Ka-5.

6. It was stated by PW-4, in cross, in relation to the G.D. No.25 of Case Crime No.214 of 2011 that the original was not brought in the Court.

7. PW-4 further proves G.D. Rapat No.37 at 23.50 hrs dated 14.01.2011 wherein it was noted that one Mustaqeem son of Jamshed resident of Maishani was interrogated. The