IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, JJ.
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow - Applicant
Versus
Nankau @ Dinesh Bajpai and Others – Opposite Parties
Application U/S 378 Defective No. 4 of 2023
Decided On : 12-01-2023
Condonation of Delay - Criminal Procedure - Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The State-appellant sought leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order acquitting the respondents-accused persons of the charge under section 302/34 of I.P.C. The prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The Court allowed the condonation of delay and refused the prayer for leave to appeal, ultimately dismissing the appeal. The Court emphasized the need for conclusive evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence and upheld the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.
Issues: Delay in preferring the appeal, sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, and the standard of proof in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence did not conclusively point to the guilt of the accused. The Court upheld the presumption of innocence and emphasized the need for a much higher degree of proof in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Final Decision: The prayer for leave to appeal was refused, and the appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(D.K. Upadhyaya, J.)
1. An application has been preferred to condone the delay along with the application seeking leave of the Court to file an appeal under section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C.
2. Office has reported a delay of 15 days in preferring this appeal.
3. Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay and also having heard the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State-appellant, we are satisfied that delay has sufficiently been explained.
4. Accordingly, the prayer for condonation of delay is allowed and resultantly the delay is condoned.
5. The State-appellant has moved the application under section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. seeking leave of the Court to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gonda whereby the respondents-accused persons have been acquitted of the charge against them for the offence punishable under section 302/34 of I.P.C. in Sessions Trial No.210 of 2015 which had arisen out of Case Crime No.23 of 2015, under section 302/34 of I.P.C., Police Station-Umari Begamganj, District-Gonda.
6. Heard learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State-appellant and perused the records available before us.
7. Prosecution case against the respondents-accused-persons rests solely on circumstantial evidence and accordingly as per settled legal position, the Court has to be cautious in its approach in recording conviction which can be done only if all the links in the chain of circumstances is complete pointing out to the guilt of the accused-persons and further only if every hypothesis of innocence is capable of being negated on the basis of evidence available on record. It is equally well settled that while evaluating circumstantial evidence adequate care must be taken.
8. It is also well settled that in an appeal against acquittal this Court has to be circumspect and unless the finding recorded by the learned trial court is found to suffer from patently erroneous approach and the findings are perverse, this Court will not interfere in the order of acquittal in appeal. Interference by this Court in an appeal against acquittal is permissible only if it is found that the view taken by the learned trial court while recording the judgment of acquittal is apparently wrong and has led to miscarriage of justice. With these legal principles in mind, we proceed to consider the prayer made by the State-appellant to grant leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal which has been sought to be impeached.
9. Prosecution case stated in brief is that a written report was submitted to the Police Station-Umari Begamganj, District-Gonda by the informant-Ram Karan Bajpai, who is the father of the deceased-Dinanath on 09.02.20215 in the morning at about 9.30 A.M. stating therein that his son Dinanath (deceased) who was aged about 21 years had gone to cut barseem (a green leefy forage used as fodder for cattles) in the field situate in front of his house on 08.02.2015 at 4.30 P.M. but he did not return and despite a vigorous search he could not be traced, however, his dead body was found at 7.00 A.M. on 09.02.2015 in the field where barseem was sown. The complainant also stated in his application that he apprehends that his son had been murdered and dead body was kept in the field. On the basis of this written report, the F.I.R. was lodged at 9.30 A.M. on 09.02.2015 at Case Crime No.23 of 2015, under section 302 of I.P.C. whereafter the investigation commenced and accordingly inquest report was prepared by the Investigating Officer and the dead body was sent to the hospital for postmortem. Certain articles were collected from the field where the dead body was found. In the postmortem report since the cause of death could not be ascertained, hence viscera was preserved which was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. Statement under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of the witne
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence, which requires stringent adherence to established evidentiary standards....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for cogent and unerring circumstantial evidence to establish guilt in cases based on such evidence, and the burden on the prosec....
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, especially in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.
Conviction for murder can be sustained based on circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory, particularly when the accused fails to explain crucial circumstances.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, all links in the evidence chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and conclusive circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
Appeals against acquittal warrant interference only if trial findings perverse or impossible; circumstantial case fails without complete chain excluding innocence, as here due to witness inconsistenc....
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.