SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 563

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTH, RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, JJ.
Devendra – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1992
Decided On : 23-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ram Babu, Amit Kumar Srivastava, Ram Babu Sharma, Ravi Kant, Sanjay Agarwal, Vijit Saxena.

In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to establish guilt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 364 - Criminal appeal against conviction - Convict-appellant challenged the judgment convicting him for abduction and murder - The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, primarily the 'last seen' theory and an extra-judicial confession - The court found inconsistencies in witness testimonies and insufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1-34)

(B) Circumstantial Evidence - The court emphasized that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and must form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 32)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of abducting and murdering Rajkumar, with the prosecution alleging that he took the victim under the pretext of watching Ramleela. The victim's body was found the next day, and the prosecution relied on witness testimonies and an alleged confession.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness statements and lack of corroborative evidence.

Issues: The main issues included the reliability of witness testimonies, the validity of the 'last seen' evidence, and the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence presented was insufficient to convict the appellant, highlighting the need for a stringent standard of proof in serious offenses.

Result: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside, acquitting the appellant of all charges.

JUDGMENT :

RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned amicus curiae for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. By means of instant criminal appeal, the convict-appellant has assailed the correctness of the judgment and order dated 19.12.1991, passed by learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar, in S.T. No. 121 of 1990, arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of 1989, Police Station Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for charges under Sections 364, 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 364 IPC and imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 IPC.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 24.10.1989, at about 6:00 P.M. accused Devendra carried away Rajkumar, son of Budhha, who was nephew of the informant, Pooran Singh (PW-1), on pretext of making him watch Ramleela, from home of the victim, in presence of Devi Singh and Satyaveer Singh. After two hours, at about 8:00 P.M. Chandrapal and Prakash, the co-villagers of the informant told him that they had seen Rajkumar going towards Village Jhumka, in company of Devendra on ‘Patri of Bamba’ from the plot of Sardar Singh, lying at a distance of 500 paces. They also heard sound of firing. These witnesses apprehended occurrence of some untoward happening. On this information, the informant together with several persons of the village, went in search of his nephew, Rajkumar, but could not get his whereabouts in the night. On next date i.e. 25.10.1989, they again proceeded in search of Rajkumar in the early morning and when they reached near plot of Sardar Singh, the dead body of Rajkumar was found in the water of ‘bamba’. The dead body was taken out of the water and placed on patari, firearm injuries were visible on person of the deceased. The accused Devendra had long-standing enmity with Rajkumar but prior to 15 days of the incident, he developed friendship with the victim Rajkumar and made him to accompany him on pretext of watching ‘Ram-Leela’ in a planned manner with intention to kill him. The informant got a written report scribed by Rajpal Singh and went to police station where he lodged the FIR. The FIR was registered vide Case Crime No. 122 of 1989, at police station Khurja Dehat, on 25.10.1989, at 8:00 A.M., against named accused Devendra. The S.H.O. concerned took over the investigation of the case herself. She collected plain earth and blood stained earth from the place of recovery of the dead body of the deceased on 25.10.1989, in presence of Gram Pradhan, Jaipal Singh, son of Meva Ram and one Jaipal Singh, sone of Sadhu Singh. She had also taken into possession one pair of socks and shoes from the place of recovery of the dead body and got it sealed. The inquest on dead body of the deceased was conducted by the Investigating Officer, S.I. S.K. Singh (PW-6), between 9:00 AM to 10:00 AM on 25.10.1989, in presence of Panch witnesses, near track of Bamba, at Jungle Village Bagrai, where dead body was found. The postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Doctor R.K. Lal (PW-5) on 25.10.1989, at about 4:10 PM. The Doctor received the dead body in a sealed cover, brought by two police personnel. He examined the injuries found on person of the deceased and prepared his postmortem examination report in his signature and handwriting, which was proved as Ex.Ka-2 by evidence of Doctor. Following injuries were found on the person of the deceased Rajkumar, according to his postmortem examination report:

    (1) Entry wound of gunshot on middle of chest on inter apple line; margins were inverted, size 1 inch in diameter and there was blackening and tattooing in the area of 1½ inches, around the injury. The direction was backwards.

    (2) Gunshot wound of exit on the right side back, just by the side of vertebral column at level of thoracic vertebra, size 3/4 inch diameter; margins a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top