Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, JJ.
Rajendra Yogi - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5011 of 2021
Decided on : 06-08-2024
Criminal - Murder - IPC Section 304 - The court analyzed the evidence and found contradictions between eyewitness accounts and medical evidence, leading to reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt under Section 304 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of a 6-year-old boy, allegedly beaten to death after taking food from a neighbor. The prosecution relied on eyewitness accounts and a post-mortem report indicating asphyxia due to throttling.
Finding of the Court:
The court found significant inconsistencies between the eyewitness testimonies and the medical evidence, particularly regarding the cause of death and the nature of injuries, leading to reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant caused the death of the minor through beating, as alleged, or if the evidence presented was inconsistent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to reconcile the contradictions between the eyewitness accounts and the medical evidence, which created reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the conviction is set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.2.2020, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Mathura in Sessions Trial No. 477 of 2015, arising out of Case Crime No. 188 of 2015, under Section 304(1) IPC, Police Station – Refinery, District – Mathura; whereby the appellant Rajendra Yogi has been convicted under Section 304(1) IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one year additional imprisonment.
2. Informant Kushalpal Singh (PW-1) is the son of Ramesh Chandra (PW-4) and is resident of Village Sirsa, Police Station Farah, District Mathura. His mother-in-law Smt. Meenakshi (PW-2) lives in a rented house in Giriraj Vatika owned by Radhaballabh. On 18.5.2015, on receiving information of death of the deceased the informant came and was told by his brother-in-law that on 17.5.2015 Dharmendra (deceased) had taken bread/food from a neighbour aunt and when the father Rajendra Singh (accused appellant) came to know of it, he mercilessly beat Dharmendra due to which, he fainted. When accused appellant saw Dharmendra in the morning, he fled. The neighbour aunt informed that Dharmendra has died and, therefore, he has come to lodge the report. With these contents the First Information Report came to be lodged in Case Crime No. 188 of 2015, under Section 304 IPC in Police Station Refinery, District Mathura at 12:30 hours in the afternoon on 18.5.2015.
3. Investigation proceeded in the matter and the investigating officer recovered a bloodstained bed-sheet from the bed where deceased was sleeping. Inquest followed and concluded at 3.30 pm. The witnesses of inquest including Ramesh Chandra (PW-4) observed bloodstains on the nose and face of the deceased. In the opinion of the inquest witnesses, deceased died on account of beating as a result of which various injuries were caused to him on his face and head. However, in order to ascertain the correct cause of death, it was resolved that post-mortem be conducted. The body was accordingly sealed and sent to mortuary for post-mortem.
4. Post-mortem on the dead body has been conducted by Dr. K.K. Mathur (PW-7). Cause of death is ascertained as asphyxia due to throttling. Hyoid bone of the deceased was found fractured. Lungs were found congested. Apart from multiple small abrasion on both sides of the neck, there are no other signs of injury on the deceased. The relevant observations made in the post-mortem report of the deceased conducted at 5.30 pm on 18.5.2015 are as under :
Age – 6 years/male
Body – Average body built
Post-mortem Changes – Rigor mortis all over body
Skull – Brain Congested
Orbital, Neck, Mouth, Tongue and Pharynx – Filled with blood & blood clots
Hyoid Bone – Hyoid Bone Fractured
Lungs – Lungs congested
Heart – Right full, Left empty
Stomach – Stomach contain 100 ml of pasty fluid.
Liver, Spleen, Kidney – congested
Time since dead – About 1/2 day back
Cause of death – Asphyxia due to throttling
Ante-mortem Injuries – Multiple Small Abrasion, Both side front of neck.''
5. Age of the deceased has been determined as 6 years. Statement of witnesses was recorded whereafter charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused appellant under Section 304 IPC.
6. The concerned magistrate took cognizance of the charge-sheet and referred the matter to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 477 of 2015. The charges were explained to the accused of committing offence under Section 304 IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. The trial commenced in which the prosecution has adduced following documentary evidence:
2. Written Report dated 18.5.2015 as Ex.Ka.1
3. Recovery Memo of blanket of the deceased as Ex.Ka. 3
4. Post-mortem Report dated 18.5.2015 as Ex.Ka.6
5. Panchayatnama dated 18.5.2015 as Ex.Ka.2
6. Charge-sheet dated 1.6.2015 as Ex
The judgment emphasizes the necessity of consistent evidence in criminal cases, highlighting that contradictions between eyewitness accounts and medical findings can lead to reasonable doubt.
The judgment establishes that in criminal cases, particularly those relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and any reasonable....
Murder – Non-examination of Doctor who conducted autopsy on dead body of deceased and who prepared post-mortem report is not fatal to case of prosecution.
Point of law: If direct evidence is satisfactory and reliable, the same cannot be rejected on hypothetical medical evidence
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to manslaughter under Section 304 Part II IPC, emphasizing lack of premeditation and specific intent due to sudden provocation.
In criminal cases, consistent and credible evidence is essential; discrepancies and reliance on related witnesses can undermine the prosecution's case and result in acquittal.
The court established that a common intention among co-accused can lead to joint liability for murder, even if not all participants inflicted the fatal blow, provided their actions collectively demon....
The admissibility of documents and witness testimonies is crucial in establishing a case beyond reasonable doubt.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
