Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 473

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
Rajan Roy, Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, JJ.
State of U.P. – Appellant
Versus
Jagdamba Prasad And Ors. – Respondents
Government Appeal No. - 1000325 of 2007, Criminal Appeal No. - 1462 of 2007, Criminal Revision No. - 398 of 2007
Decided On : 04-03-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : G.M.Kamil, A.R.Siddiqui, A.R.Siddiqui, Sanjay Kumar Yadav
For the Respondent: Ghulam Mohammad Kamil, Anil Kumar Maurya, G.M. Kamil, Sanjay Kumar Yadav

IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the High Court's power to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction is limited as per Section 401(3) of Cr.P.C.

Headnote:
Murder - Criminal Law - Section 302, 34 I.P.C., Section 201 I.P.C. - The judgment discusses the acquittal of three accused and the conviction of one accused for the murder of the deceased. The court analyzed the evidence, witness testimonies, and inconsistencies in the prosecution case. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the convicted accused. The judgment also highlighted the limitations on the High Court's power to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was forcibly taken away and murdered in the night. The prosecution alleged that the accused committed the murder and tried to destroy evidence. The trial court acquitted three accused and convicted one accused, leading to appeals and a revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted inconsistencies in witness testimonies, lack of forensic evidence, and unnatural conduct of the witnesses. The court concluded that the judgment of acquittal of the three accused was sustained, and the conviction of the appellant was set aside as it was based on conjecture and surmises.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of witness testimonies, inconsistencies in the prosecution case, delay in lodging the F.I.R., and the limitations on the High Court's power to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It also highlighted the limitations on the High Court's power to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, as per Section 401(3) of Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The judgment of acquittal of the three accused was sustained, and the conviction of the appellant was set aside. The appeal of the State was dismissed, and the appeal of the appellant was allowed. The revision of the informant was dismissed. The appellant was directed to file a personal bond and two sureties in compliance with Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure within six weeks.

JUDGMENT :

Rajan Roy, J.

1. Heard Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Anil Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for respondents no. 2 and 4 in Government Appeal No. 1000325 of 2007. Mr. G.M. Kamil, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State have been heard in Criminal Appeal No. 1462 of 2007. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist and Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State have been heard in Criminal Revision No. 398 of 2007.

2. Respondent no. 3-Sant Ram has died in Government Appeal No.1000325 of 2007 and the appeal has abated as regards him so has Revision No.398 of 2007 in so far as it relates to him.

3. At the very outset, it needs to be mentioned that out of the four accused, three, namely, Santram, Ramdev and Ramdas have been acquitted of the charge of murdering the deceased-Rajendra Kumar Verma and trying to destroy evidence punishable under Section 302, 34 I.P.C. and Section 201 I.P.C. whereas the fourth accused, namely, Jagdamba Prasad has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

4. The State of U.P. has filed Government Appeal No.1000325 of 2007 against acquittal of the aforesaid three persons. Jagdamba Prasad has filed Criminal Appeal No.1462 of 2007 challenging his conviction vide impugned judgment and order dated 22.06.2007 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in Session Trial No.102 of 2004 arising out of Case Crime No.29 of 2004, P.S.-Haswar, District-Ambedkar Nagar holding him guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him rigorous life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further three months' simple imprisonment. The informant-Jais Ram Verma who is brother of the deceased has filed Criminal Revision No.398 of 2007 for setting aside acquittal of the earlier mentioned three accused and for punishing them with which they were charged.

5. The prosecution case in nutshell is that in the night intervening 18/19.05.2004, deceased- Rajendra Kumar Verma was taken away forcibly by the accused while he was on a charpai in the grove and, by his side, his grand-father i.e. P.W.2-Ram Lakhan aged eighty years was sleeping. He was taken to the house of Jagdamba Prasad and was done to death, thereafter the body was thrown about 200 meters away near the Chak road. P.W.2 i.e. Ram Lakhan had seen the accused taking away the deceased from the grove and P.W.3 saw them throwing the body near the Chak road and running away.

6. The distance of the police station from the scene of crime is about 10 Kms. The incident of carrying away Rajendra Kumar Verma from the grove is said to have taken place at about 10:00-10:30 P.M. The body is said to have been recovered at about 02:00-02:30 A.M. the same night and F.I.R. (Ex.Ka12) has been lodged in the morning i.e. on 19.05.2004 at 07:30 A.M. on the written tehrir of P.W.1 i.e. Jaisram Verma.

7. Inquest was conducted between 07:30-09:00 A.M. on 19.05.2004. Post-mortem (Ex.Ka.10) was conducted on 19.05.2004 at 01:00 P.M.

8. As per the post-mortem report, there were fifteen ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased and cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.

9. The weapon used to commit the crime i.e. two lathis and two sticks which were blood-stained were recovered from the house of Jagdamba Prasad allegedly on his pointing while he was on police custody on 19.05.2004 at 06:10 P.M. The accused-Jagdamba Prasad and Sant Ram were arrested on 19.05.2004 itself. The other accused were arrested on subsequent date.

10. The blood stained clothes worn by the accused-Jagdamba Prasad and Santram were also recovered on 19.05.2004 itself at the same time i.e. at 06:10 P.M. The plain and blood stained soil were collected from the scene of crime on 19.05.2004. Recovery memos in this regard are Ex.Ka.7, Ex.Ka.8 and Ex.Ka.9.

11. Chargesheet was filed against all the four accused for the aforesai