Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, JJ.
Sher Singh and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4508 of 2024
Decided On : 11-11-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 364 - Conviction and sentence of accused under Sections 302 and 364 IPC challenged - The trial court's reliance on circumstantial evidence was found inadequate due to contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence - The motive alleged was not substantiated and introduced late in the proceedings - Appeal allowed, conviction set aside. (Paras 25 and 26)
(B) Evidence - Last seen theory - The court emphasized that conviction cannot solely rely on the last seen theory without corroborative evidence and must consider the entire prosecution case. (Paras 24)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was last seen with the accused before being found dead with multiple stab wounds, leading to the conviction of the accused based on circumstantial evidence.
Findings of Court:
The trial court failed to adequately analyze the evidence and contradictions in witness statements, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
Issues: The main issues were the reliability of witness testimonies and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's case lacked sufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly due to the unreliability of key witnesses and the absence of a clear motive.
Result: Appeal allowed, conviction set aside.
JUDGMENT :
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.03.2024, passed by the Sessions Judge at Firozabad in Sessions Trial No. 300669 of 2013 (State of U.P. Vs. Sher Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 297 of 2012, Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad, whereby the accused appellants Sher Singh, Arjun Singh and Sanju have been convicted and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/-, each, and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo six months additional imprisonment and under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, each, and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo six months additional imprisonment. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. The father of the deceased, namely, Charan Singh has lodged a written report stating that his 25 year old son Amar Pal @ Rinku (deceased) was running a shop of toys near the Vaishnav Dham Shrine. He used to sleep in the night at his shop. As per his routine, he had gone at about 7.00 p.m. on 29.04.2012 after having his meals to the shop but did not return in the morning. The informant visited the shop and found his son missing. On inquiry from the nearby shop owners, it transpired that two unknown persons had taken his son on a motorcycle, whereafter his mutilated body was found near the Agricultural University, having multiple stab wounds. Apprehension was expressed that due to enmity his son has been done to death. The body has been recovered near Kishan Dhabba, which is close to NH-2 in Village Kushayni. On this report FIR came to be lodged on 30.04.2012, under Section 302 I.P.C. Inquest was held on 30.04.2012 at 12.30 p.m. The inquest witnesses found multiple stab wounds on the body of the deceased and it was resolved that postmortem be conducted to ascertain the cause of death. The postmortem has been conducted in which following injuries were found on body of the deceased:
(2) A L/W of size 5.0 x 3.0 x bone deep over left cheek just below left eye clotted blood present.
(3) Multiple abrasion over neck 7.0 c.m. below chin. In an area 14.0 c.m. x 8.0 c.m. over hyoid bone.
(4) Multiple abrasion over back. In whole chest and abdomen up to hip.”
3. The FIR, admittedly, was lodged against unknown persons and the role of the accused appellants surfaced on the basis of an application of informant dated 17.05.2012, which is exhibited as Ka-2. In his report, the informant alleged that he has come to know that his son was done to death by the accused persons, namely, Sher Singh and Arjun Singh sons of Bhogi Ram and brother-in-law of accused Arjun Singh, namely, Sanju who lives with Arjun Singh. This application further stated that about four months earlier accused Sher Singh had alleged that informant’s younger son Deepchand had an affair with his daughter. Deepchand was engaged in running cable business. On this apprehension, the aforesaid three accused had assaulted Deepchand and Amarpal and had extended threats that they would not leave them. It is also asserted that ever since the death of the deceased the accused persons are missing and consequently apprehension was expressed that these appellants have committed the murder of the deceased. It is on the basis of the apprehension expressed in the application of 17.05.2012 that the accused appellants have been implicated and a charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer on 16.08.2012. Cognizance was taken on the charge-sheet and case was committed to the court of Sessions which was registered as Sessions Trial No. 300669 of 2013 (State of U.P. Vs. Sher Singh and others). Charges were framed against the accused appellants under Sections 364 I.P.C. as well as under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be reliable and corroborated; mere reliance on the last seen theory is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction; mere suspicion is insufficient.
Murder – “Last seen” doctrine has limited application, where time lag between time deceased was seen last with accused and time of murder is narrow – Court should not convict an accused only on the b....
In circumstantial murder cases, last seen theory alone cannot sustain conviction without complete evidentiary chain excluding innocence, especially with wide time gap allowing third-party interventio....
The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and motive, leading to the acquittal of the appellants in a murder case.
Point of Law : Offence of Murder – Conviction set aside – Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of circumstances does not show link to each other.
Examination of witnesses by Police – Portion of prior statement shown to witness for contradicting the witness must be proved through Investigating Officer – Unless said portion of prior statement us....
In a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, multiple corroborative factors, including the last seen theory and absence of alternative explanations, can establish guilt beyond reasonable ....
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
