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) 1512

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rajiv Gupta, Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi, JJ.
Sunil – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 241 of 2007
Decided On : 12-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R.K. Singh, Ajay Vashistha, Ashok Kumar Tripathi, Noor Mohammad, Yogesh Srivastava
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 449 - Appeal against conviction - The appellant was convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment - The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of credible eyewitnesses and inconsistencies in testimonies - The FIR was deemed ante-timed, raising doubts about its authenticity - The absence of independent witnesses further weakened the prosecution's case. (Paras 52, 53)

(B) Evidence - Credibility of Witnesses - The court emphasized that the testimonies of related witnesses must be scrutinized carefully, and the absence of independent corroboration can lead to doubts about their reliability. (Paras 37, 46)

Facts of the case:

The appellant was accused of murdering his wife, Kunti Devi, during a domestic dispute. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimonies of the complainant and his uncle, who claimed to have witnessed the incident. However, their credibility was questioned due to inconsistencies and the absence of physical evidence linking the appellant to the crime.

Findings of Court:

The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the reversal of the conviction.

Issues: The main issues included the reliability of eyewitness accounts, the authenticity of the FIR, and the absence of independent witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's failure to provide credible evidence and the presence of reasonable doubt necessitated the reversal of the conviction.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside.

JUDGMENT :

Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi, J.

1. Present criminal appeal, under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., has been preferred before this Court, on behalf of appellant, Sunil, challenging the judgement and order dated 29.11.2006, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Bulandshahar, Sessions Trial No.972 of 2006 (State Versus Sunil) in Case Crime No.117 of 2006, u/s 452 and 449 I.P.C., Police Station Khurja, District Bulandshahar, wherein the accused/appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 449 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and to serve out seven years imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 449 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo additional simple imprisonment of one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and six months’ additional simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 449 I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Succinctly, the prosecution story, as projected in F.I.R., undisputed facts and other material on record, is that on 15.07.2006 at about 9.30 p.m. complainant Vinod Kumar s/o Natthi Singh, R/o Mobarikpur, Police Station Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar, presented a Tehrir, scribed by Jai Prakash Singh and signed by the complainant, in Police Station Khurja, in respect of an incident, alleged to have occurred on 15.07.2006 at about 7.30 p.m., unravelling therein the fact that on the fateful day he had gone to Khurja at about 3.00 p.m. to collect his wages. At about 7.30, in the evening, when he returned at his home, he saw that Sunil s/o Badam Singh, hailing from Village Bagrai Khurd, after flinging his wife Kunti Devi, down on the ground, inside the house, was inflicting blows on her head and face, with a brick. His co-villagers Heera Lal and Ved Ram are brothers-in-law of the father of Sunil. Hence he used to visit their house frequently. Sunil had done to death his wife Kunti, by causing injuries on her head and face. On her shriek and wailing, Devkaran, Sukhdeo and several others, of his vicinity gathered on the spot. Looking to the gathering of people and his insipid position, the accused- Sunil disappeared from the place of occurrence, giving a push to the complainant. There was no animus and animosity between Sunil, as well as with his family members and complainant. Sunil had struck severely with brick on the head and face of his deceased wife Kunti Devi on account of some abrupt wrangling over some issue.

3. On the basis of aforesaid Tehrir (Ext. Ka-1), Criminal Case Crime No. 117 of 2006 under Section 304 and 452 I.P.C. was registered at the Police Station Khurja Dehat, against accused Sunil. The entries were drawn in Kaimi G.D. No. 39 dated 15.07.2006, at 21.30 hours and simultaneously Chik F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-12), was prepared. Initially the investigation was entrusted to Sub Inspector, Daya Chand Satsangi.

4. Thus, the investigation set into motion. The Investigating Officer proceeded to place of occurrence in association with Station Officer, Karan Singh Chauhan, C- Iqbal Khan, C- Suresh Pal, etc. He recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared site-plan. After nominating the witnesses, the Investigating Officer launched the inquest proceeding, of the dead body of the deceased, at about 9.30 p.m. on the same day. In the opinion of panches, the deceased Kunti Devi died due to the injuries sustained by her. It is also mentioned in the inquest report that the deceased had a pregnancy of eight months. However, they opined that in order to ascertain the real cause of death, postmortem may be got done. The Investigating Officer subscribed to the opinion of the inquest witnesses. Therefore, the Investigating Officer prepared formal papers, photo lash, report to the R.I., request for postmortem to Chief Medical Officer and challan l

                            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