IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA -I, SARAL SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Raju - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. - 4611 OF 2013.
Decided On : 19-01-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. description of the crime and investigation process. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 15) |
| 2. defense arguments on innocence and evidence. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. state's response to defense arguments. (Para 22) |
| 4. details of the victim's last seen and recovery. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. court's examination of witness credibility. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. assessment of f.i.r. timing and reliability. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 7. critical analysis of investigatory procedures and evidence. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 8. conclusion on the benefit of doubt and acquittal. (Para 45 , 46) |
| 9. final decision and orders of the court. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri R.B. Singh and Sri N.K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri A.N. Mullah, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 20.08.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Bareilly, in Session Trial No. 1143 of 2012 (State of U.P. v. Raju), arising out of Case Crime No.1092 of 2012, under Sections - 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station - Baheri, District - Bareilly whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C., coupled with fine Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, one month additional simple imprisonment and three years rigorous imprisonment under Section - 201 I.P.C. coupled with fine Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, two months additional simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Facts of this Appeal:-
3. Factual matrix of this case as reflected from the record proceeds on line that the informant of this case, Natthu Lal (P.W.-1), father of deceased- Yashpal lodged a written report at Police Station - Bahedi on 12.10.2012 at 01:10 p.m. against the appellant with description that the informant is resident of Village - Bhurha Bahadurpur within Police Station - Baheri Bareilly. While he was sitting in his house on 11.10.2012 along with his brother Prem Shankar and Rakesh son of Vindravan around 03:00 p.m., Raju son of Dori Lal Gangwar came over there, called his son Yashpal and asked to accompany him to Bhurhiya for sharpening edges of 'daranti' (sickle). Informant's son took four 'daranti' (sickle) with him and departed along with accused on motorcycle U.P. 25 AF 1284, but he did not return whole night. Search was made for the whereabouts of Yashpal but to no avail. The next day at 10:00 a.m., Raju was seen coming towards the village, when he was enquired about whereabouts of Yashpal, he adopted dilly dallying tactics and tried to avoid the query but upon pressure being exerted by the villagers, Raju told that Yashpal and he himself consumed liquor during night at Uganpur and in order to commit theft of motorcycle cajoled him somewhere in between Makroi and Dadyabojh and cut his neck with the 'daranti' and threw him away in the canal and concealed the motorcycle in the sugar-cane field of Moti Ram.
4. Upon such disclosure, the informant along with others took the accused-appellant to the place where the dead body of Yashpal was lying. Consequently, a report was written and got lodged at the Police Station - Bahedi, the same is Ext. Ka-1. Relevant entries whereof were made in the concerned Check F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-6) at Case Crime No. 1092 of 2012, under Sections - 302, 201 I.P.C. at Police Station - Bahedi. On the basis of the same, case was registered against the accused-Raju at Serial No. 29 of the General Diary concerned of date 12.10.2012 at 01:10 p.m. at aforesaid police station. The copy of concerned G.D. is Ext Ka-7. Both these papers have been proved by Constable Jhajhan Lal (P.W.-5). Consequently, the investigation ensued and the same was entrusted to S.H.O. Sunil Kumar Pachori (P.W.-6).
5. The Inspector Devendra Kumar Tyagi PW-4 prepared the inquest report under supervision of t
AI
The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; significant contradictions and procedural irregularities in the FIR undermine the conviction.
Direct eyewitness testimony can establish guilt in murder cases, supported by physical evidence, where minor discrepancies do not diminish credibility.
A conviction under Section 394 IPC requires evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which is compromised by significant procedural lapses and inconsistencies in witness statements.
Acquittal upheld due to insufficient evidence and procedural irregularities affecting credibility.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies and investigative delays can undermine its credibility.
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.