IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRITINKER DIWAKER, CJ., JASPREET SINGH, J.
Taufeeq - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1569 OF 2016.
Decided On : 09-08-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeals against convictions heard. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of the case established through fir details. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. charges framed against the accused. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. accused claim innocence; highlight flaws in prosecution. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. prosecution witnesses' reliability discussed. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. circumstantial evidence criteria emphasized. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. assessment of witnesses’ testimonies and inconsistencies. (Para 15 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. investigative shortcomings highlighted. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 9. importance of thorough investigation underscored. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 10. evaluation of child witness testimony discussed. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 11. expert testimony examined; inconsistencies noted. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 12. prosecution's lack of motive significant; emphasizes benefit of doubt. (Para 32 , 33) |
| 13. court findings led to benefit of doubt; conviction overturned. (Para 34 , 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT
Pritinker Diwaker, CJ.
The convicted appellants have preferred the instant two appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 29th September, 2016 and the sentence dated 01.10.2016 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Pratapgarh in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2013 ( State v. Mohd. Imran and two others) convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 376 (2) (f & g) I.P.C. with life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine with a six months of additional simple imprisonment. They have also been convicted and sentenced under Section 304 /34 I.PC. with life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and again in default of payment of fine with additional six months of simple imprisonment.
2. Taufique has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1569 of 2016 against his conviction while Mohd. Imran and Farhan have jointly filed Criminal Appeal No. 1570 of 2016 against their respective convictions.
3. The prosecution case as evident from the First Information Report (Exhibit-Ka-2) which was lodged by Sri Samarjeet Saroj, the elder brother of the victim, reveals that on 20.06.2012, the mother of the informant had around 03:30 PM gone to graze her goats towards Dihwa Forest situate in the northern side of the Village. The informant's sister (the victim) a 11 year old girl went behind her mother near the fields of Shiv Poojan for plucking mustard. At around 04:15 PM, the victim returned home and thereafter she started playing with the children of the neighbourhood. At around 06:00 PM, the victim went towards the Dihwa Forest to call her mother. Later, the mother of the informant returned with the goats but the victim did not return and thereafter the informant alongwith his neighbours went searching for the victim till late night. It is around 05:30 in the morning when the ladies of the village saw the disrobed body of the victim lying in the Dihwa Forest, they informed the informant who along with his mother went to the site and saw the disrobed body of the victim lying around 50 steps from the tube-well of Sri Shyam Lal Jaiswal in the Dihwa Forest. The victim was gagged with her own chemise and from the drawstrings of her lower garment, she was strangulated . At the site, the lower garment and the under-garment of the victim was lying near the body. The informant stated that Sri Dinesh Kumar Saroj, Km. Chandani and Nagendra had told the informant that on 20.06.2012 at around 05:30 PM, they had seen the victim go towards the Dihwa Forest and around the same time, they had seen the accused Imran, Mohd. Farhan, Taufeeq along with Saif Ali go behind the victim and the informant suspected that these persons have raped and strangulated the victim whose body is lying in the Dihwa Forest where other people of the village have gathered.
4. Upon the aforesaid information, investigation commenced done and as per the postmortem report dated 22.06.2012 (Exhibit-Ka-4), the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante morte
Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh; (2020) 10 SCC 166
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793
Circumstantial evidence must establish a conclusive chain consistent with the accused's guilt; suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal convictions.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, a complete and conclusive chain establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt is necessary; mere suspicion is insufficient.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the need for a complete chain of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment establishes that circumstantial evidence must form a complete, unbroken chain directly linking the accused to the crime, which warranted a life sentence in this case.
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the accused providing an adeq....
The judgment establishes the principles of circumstantial evidence, the last seen theory, and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
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.