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) 706

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Siddharth, Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, JJ.
Rahatjan - Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 72 of 1984
Decided On : 03-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.I. Jafri,Amar Nath Sharma,Kuldeep Johri,Shadab Ali,Vimlendu Tripathi
For the Respondent: Dga

The court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the necessity of a complete chain of circumstances to establish guilt, while recognizing the appellant's juvenility affecting sentencing.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - The appellant was convicted for the murder of a minor by strangulation, with evidence primarily based on circumstantial evidence, including last seen testimony and extra-judicial confession. The trial court found the prosecution's evidence sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 2, 13, 40)

(B) Circumstantial Evidence - The court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete to establish guilt. The absence of direct witnesses necessitates a thorough examination of the circumstantial links. (Paras 13, 40)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering a 12-year-old boy, Firasat, by strangulation in his wheat field. The prosecution presented evidence from multiple witnesses who saw the accused with the victim shortly before the murder, along with an extra-judicial confession made by the accused after his arrest. (Paras 3, 13)

Findings of Court:
The trial court concluded that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was compelling and established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC. (Paras 40, 49)

Issues: The main issues included the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the reliability of witness testimonies, and the appellant's claim of juvenility. (Paras 16, 18)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the circumstantial evidence, including the last seen testimony and the recovery of the body and murder weapon, formed a complete chain that pointed to the appellant's guilt. The court also recognized the appellant's status as a juvenile at the time of the offense, impacting sentencing. (Paras 40, 48)

Result: The conviction was upheld, but the sentence was set aside due to the appellant's juvenility, allowing for probation instead of imprisonment. (Paras 49)

JUDGMENT :

R.M.N. Mishra, J.

1. Heard Sri Vimlendu Tripathi and Sri Kuldeep Johri, learned counsels for the appellant and Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned AGA for the State.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 22.12.1983 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur in Session Trial No. 83 of 1983 arising out of Case Crime no. 35/1983 under section 302 IPC, P.S. Suar, District Rampur whereby appellant has been convicted of charge under section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 5.3.1983 after 6:00 pm, the accused Rahatjan had committed the murder of Firasat, a young boy of 12 years of age by strangulating him in his wheat field, situated in village Aglaga, P.S. Suar, District Rampur. It is also said that on 6.3.1983 on being arrested, the accused made an extra judicial confession of his having caused the death of Firasat by strangulating him with the help of Angochha and he helped the police personnel in making available the dead body of deceased Firasat inside his wheat field and muffler with the help of which, Firasat was strangulated by him by taking out the same from the rahat situated in hat very field.

Police investigated the case and filed charge-sheet against the appellant for charge under section 302 IPC. Learned C.J.M., Rampur took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court of session for trial. On commencement of trial, learned trial court framed charge under section 302 IPC against the appellant and he was put to trial for said charge. The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses in support of charge.

4. Akhtar Ali (PW-1), who is the father of the deceased Firasat and is de-facto complainant in this case. He has stated that Firasat Ali, aged 10-11 years, had gone to pray Asar ki Namaz on 5.3.1983, in the evening and thereafter he had not returned. At that time, he was wearing a shirt, Baniyan, Trouser and woollen sweater. He made search on the next day at about 9:00 am. Khurshid Ahmad met him and told about his having seen Firasat alongwith Rahat Jan going towards the side of cane centre after the period of Asar ki Namaz. Thereafter, Chhotey and Noor Ali also met him and they also told him about their having seen Firasat and Rahat Jan going towards the side of Bijlighar on 5.3.1983 at about 6:00 pm. The accused Rahat Jan had a field towards Bijlighar. On having these informations, he went to the house of Rahat Jan and found Rahat Jan not available at his house. He was told by Safadar Mian about Rahat Jan having not returned to the house since 6:00 pm yesterday. He got the report Ex. Ka-1, written from Hashim Husain and went to the police station and lodged the same. It is also stated that the accused is in the habit of indulging in sodomy and his activities were made known to this effect. He has been cross examined at length. He has stated that Firasat Ali deceased had not gone to offer prayer of Asar Ki Namaz in his presence rather he came to know from his wife on return from the jungle. On that day, he had gone to his field, which is at distance of a furlong from his house. Asar Ki Namaz is being offered at about 5:00 pm. He has stated to have participated in Maghrib Ki Namaz and after offering the prayer there, he came to his house and was informed about Firasat having not returned till then. He enquired from the children with whom he used to play but he could not get his whereabouts. It is also stated that, in the night he had not gone to lodge the report with a thinking that Firasat might have gone to the house of his Mamu in village Khempur and in the morning he went to village Khempur to enquire and thereafter returned to his village when Khurshid, Chhotey and Noor Ali met him and informed about their having seen Firasat with the accused after the hours of Asar Ki Namaz. He has also stated that towards the east of his house, there is an open piece of land where there is a Pakar tree. This land

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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