Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 1674

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Gautam Chowdhary, JJ.
Veer Singh And Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 2445 of 2019, Criminal Appeal No. - 2485 of 2019, Criminal Appeal No. - 2519 of 2019, Criminal Appeal No. - 2625 of 2019, Criminal Appeal No. - 2904 of 2019
Decided On : 08-11-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.P.S. Chauhan, Abhijeet Singh, Raj Kumar Dhama, Raj Kumar Singh, Shashi Shekhar Mishra, Vidya Prakash Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh, Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava, Ramesh Kumar Singh, Sudhir Kumar Kulshrestha, Rakesh Tripathi I, Smt. Meenakshi Chauhan
For the Respondent: Adarsh Bhushan, G.A.

IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction; mere suspicion is insufficient.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 364, 302, 201 - Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and abduction - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence and last seen theory - Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime - Testimony of key witnesses was deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration - Trial court's judgment reversed. (Paras 28-31)
(B) Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - The prosecution must prove each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt and establish a complete chain of evidence to sustain a conviction - Mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction. (Paras 30-31)

JUDGMENT :

Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.

1. The above criminal appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 28.2.2019, passed by the First Additional Sessions and District Judge, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No.823 of 2009, arising out of Case Crime No.71 of 2009, under Sections 364/34, 302/34, 201/34 IPC, Police Station – Dhaulana, District – Ghaziabad; whereby the accused appellants Veer Singh, Vishnu, Satendra, Suresh, Munesh and Indrapal @ Indal Jatav have been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC alongwith fine of Rs. 30,000/-, each, and in default of payment of fine to undergo one year’s additional imprisonment; sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.20,000/- each, under Section 364/34 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo ten month’s additional imprisonment; sentenced to seven years imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, under Section 201/34 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo eight year’s additional imprisonment. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case is based upon the report of Manoj Kumar (PW-1), who is a resident of Dhaulana. On 12.3.2009, he had gone to offer prayers in Sai Temple in Sapnawat along with his wife and family members. After offering prayers at the temple while the family was resting, the informant’s son, aged about 4 years (the deceased) asked for an ice-cream. It was around 1:30 P.M. and the child started crying for the ice-cream. Informant sent his minor son alongwith PW-9 to get him an ice-cream. Near the ice-cream vendor, accused Shakti Singh and his maternal uncle, Vishnu, were also present, who gave four ice-creams to PW-9 and asked the minor son of the informant to stay with him on the pretext of offering him bigger ice-cream. PW-9 was sent back by the accused persons to the informant. After some time, accused Shakti Singh came to the informant and inquired about informant’s son. The informant told accused Shakti Singh that PW-9 had left him with him. The informant then tried to locate his missing son, but he could not be found. A missing report was lodged on 12.3.2009 in that regard.

3. On 14.3.2009, the dead-body of the informant’s son was found within the limits of Bahadurgarh Police Station at Mohammadpur Paswar. The allegation in the written report is that on account of old enmity, accused Shakti Singh alongwith his father Veer Singh and the maternal uncle Vishnu have abducted informant’s son and thereafter his body has been thrown in Mohammadpur Paswada. This written report has been exhibited during trial as Ex.Ka.-1. On the basis of this written report, Case Crime No.71 of 2009, under Sections 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 I.P.C. came to be registered at Police Station Dhaulana, District Ghaziabad.

4. The Investigating Officer proceeded further in the matter and the inquest was conducted between 6:05 P.M. to 7:30 P.M. on the same day i.e. 14.3.2009. The inquest witnesses were of the view that the deceased has died on account of injuries caused and, therefore, they recommended holding of post-mortem in the matter. The post-mortem was conducted on the next day, i.e. 15.3.2009, wherein the cause of death was determined as asphyxia due to strangulation. Following injuries have been found on the deceased:-

(ii) Abraded contusion all our body in size 5x3 cm to 3x3 cm area.

(iii) Face and nails cyanosed.”

5. The Magistrate took cognizance on the charge-sheet and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where the charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 I.P.C. The charges were read out to the accused, who denied the accusation and demanded trial.

6. Before proceeding further, it would be necessary to refer to the contents of the missing report lodged earlier in the matter which is duly exhibited as Ex.Ka-2. The missing report was lodged by the informant in which it