IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRITINKER DIWAKER, NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Murari Lal and another - Appellants
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent
Capital Case Appeal No. 2 of 2020 and Reference No. 02 of 2020
Decided on : 30-11-2022
Criminal - Death Reference - Cr.P.C. Section 366, IPC Sections 302, 201, 376D, POCSO Act Section 6, SC/ST Act Section 3(2)(v) - The court emphasized the necessity of proving circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt and the weak nature of extra-judicial confessions, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the murder and rape of a 12-year-old girl, with the accused convicted based on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions, which were challenged for lack of corroboration and reliability.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and that the extra-judicial confessions were unreliable, leading to the conclusion that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: Whether the circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions were sufficient to uphold the conviction and death sentence of the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt, and extra-judicial confessions require corroboration to be deemed reliable.
Result: The appeal is allowed, the death reference is rejected, and the appellants are acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J.
Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajeev Nayan Singh, appearing for the appellants and Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned AGA for the State.
2. This death reference was made to this Court under Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for confirmation of death sentence awarded to the appellants. The death reference and capital case are heard together and this judgement will govern both the capital case as well as the death reference.
3. This death reference and the capital case arise out of the judgment and order dated 10.1.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 9, Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 753 of 2019 (C.I.S. No. 1500286/2018) (State v. Murari Lal and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 50 of 2016 under Section 302/34, 201, 376D of I.P.C., Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Nawabganj, District - Bareilly and sentencing them to death sentence with fine of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 302 I.P.C., in default of payment of fine, one year additional imprisonment, 7 years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10000/- under Section 201 I.P.C., in default of payment of fine, three months additional imprisonment, life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50000/- under Section 376D I.P.C., in default of payment of fine, one year additional imprisonment, life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50000/- under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in default of payment of fine, one year additional imprisonment, and life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50000/- under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, in default of payment of fine, one year additional imprisonment.
4. As per the prosecution case, on 29.1.2016 at about 12 in the Noon the deceased, who was a minor girl aged 12 years, left for the field and thereafter, she did not return. She was searched initially in the village itself by her family members and the information about her missing was also communicated to her father Hemraj (P.W. 1), who at the relevant point of time had gone to another village namely Idgaon. At about 4 p.m., some children informed P.W. 1 that one dead body is lying in a 'Lahi' field and when P.W. 1 and other villagers reached at the spot, they found the naked body of the deceased and they also noticed injuries on her private part.
5. Information was given to the police and based on written report (Ex.Ka-1), First Information Report (Ex.Ka-2) was registered against unknown persons under Section 302, 201, 376 I.P.C. read with Section 4 of POCSO Act. Inquest on the dead body was conducted on 29.1.2016 at 5.30 p.m. vide Ex.Ka-4 and the body was sent for post-mortem, which was conducted on 30.1.2016 by Dr. Neelam Arya (P.W. 5) vide Ex.Ka-5. The Autopsy Surgeon has found following injuries :
2. Contusion 5.0 x 4.0 cm. over the front and left side neck upper part over Thyroid Cartilage.
3. Abrasion 1.0 x 0.1 cm. over the left side neck, 3.0 cm. below left sides angel of Mandible.
4. Abrasion 0.3 x 0.3 cm. over the left side face - cheek area 4.0 cm. away from angle of mouth.
5. Contusion 2.0 x 0.6 cm. over nostril upper lip with swelling.
6. Contusion 3.0 x 1.0 cm. over lower lip with swelling.
7. Blood stained discharge tickle down from Vulva and Vagina with blood stained present on Vulva.
8. Hymen lacerated at 7 O'clock position edges of Hymen are swelling bleeding present.
9. Abrasion 14.0 x 5 cm. cm. On the back of left forearm and hand involving wrist joint 7.0 cm. below elbow.
10. Abrasion 1.0 x 0.3 cm. over back of left forearm 3.0 cm. below elbow.''
6. While framing charge, the trial Judge has framed the charge against the accused appellants under Section 302/34, 201, 376D of I.P.C., Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [1995 Supp (4) SCC 259 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 59
State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram [(2003) 8 SCC 180 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1965]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129]
Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1969) 3 SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 55]
Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra [(1972) 4 SCC 625 : AIR 1972 SC 656].
Sahadevan and another v. State of Tamil Nadu
Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan [(2010) 10 SCC 604 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 79
Thimma and Thimma Raju v. State of Mysore [(1970) 2 SCC 105 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 320
Mulk Raj v. State of U.P. [AIR 1959 SC 902 : 1959 Cri LJ 1219]
Sivakumar v. State [(2006) 1 SCC 714 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 470]
Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewari v. State of Maharashtra [(2009) 11 SCC 262 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1320]
Piara Singh and others v. State of Punjab
Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey and another
Mohd. Azad v. State of W.B. [(2008) 15 SCC 449 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1082]]'
Circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and extra-judicial confessions require corroboration; failure to meet these standards results in acquittal.
Extrajudicial confessions must be voluntary and credible; reliance on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and conclusive chain excluding reasonable doubt for a conviction.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere circumstantial evidence or suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
Extra-judicial confessions require corroborative evidence to ensure reliability; circumstantial evidence must present a complete chain connecting the accused to the crime without reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt, and extrajudicial confessions require corroboration to be credible.
Conviction based on unreliable evidence, particularly last seen theory and coerced extra-judicial confession, cannot meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt, and extrajudicial confessions require corroboration to be reliable.
Extra-judicial confessions must be corroborated and cannot solely support a conviction, especially when obtained under duress.
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.