Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2902

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.
Rajesh - Appellant
Versus
The State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1791 of 2002
Decided on : 27-10-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Kailash Kumar Singh, Vimal Kishor Singh
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate

The prosecution's case failed due to significant contradictions in witness testimonies and procedural lapses, leading to reasonable doubt, thus necessitating acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 452 and 307 - Appeal against conviction for attempted murder and house trespass - The trial court convicted appellant based on witness testimonies, despite discrepancies and lack of corroborating evidence - Appellant's conviction hinged on the credibility of witnesses who later testified with conflicting accounts. (Paras 2-37)

(B) Evidence - Necessity of corroboration and the impact of contrary statements on credibility - Court noted significant contradictions between witnesses regarding the accused's presence at the crime scene, undermining prosecution's case. (Paras 22-32)

(C) Delay and investigation - Delay in sending the F.I.R. and in witness examinations raised reasonable doubt regarding the integrity of the investigation and the prosecution's case. (Paras 29-36)

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged a conviction for attempted murder and house trespass stemming from an incident where the complainant's daughter was shot. Testimony from family members provided crucial elements of the case.

Findings of Court:
Court found serious inconsistencies in key witness accounts and deficiencies in the investigative process.

Issues: The main questions included the reliability of testimonies and potential motives for false implication.

Ratio Decidendi: The court stated that the evidence presented had to be coherent and free of substantial contradictions. Perceived failures in the investigation compounded doubts regarding the reliability of eyewitnesses, leading to a finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Result: Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted.

Table of Content
1. introduction and context of the appeal (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual background of the incident and medical examination (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. witness testimonies and their credibility (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. court's analysis of evidence and contradictions (Para 18 , 22 , 23 , 25)
5. arguments by the defense and prosecution (Para 20 , 21 , 24)
6. court observations regarding the reliability and contradictions in witness statements. (Para 26)
7. legal standards for relying on witness testimony (Para 28 , 29 , 31)
8. final judgment and acquittal of the accused (Para 36 , 37)

JUDGMENT :

Hon’ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.

1. Heard Shri Vimal Kishor Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Mamta Pandey and Shri Alok Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the respondent/State.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant, Rajesh, challenging the judgment and order dated 16.11.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court no.3, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 414 of 2001: State of U.P. vs. Rajesh, arising out of Case Crime No. 117 of 2000, under Sections 452 /307 INDIAN PENAL CODE , Police Station Ataria, District Sitapur, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under :-

(b) under Section 307 I.P.C. to undergo 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo additional two month’s simple imprisonment.

3. The prosecution case, as per the written report dated 4.8.2000 (Ext.Ka-1), is that in the intervening night of 3/4th August, 2000, the daughter of the informant-Vidyadhar (P.W.1), namely, Kusma (P.W.2) and Sona Devi (P.W.3) were lying in the courtyard and his son, namely, Makhan (P.W.4) was lying on the terrace and other members of the family were lying outside. Around 1 O'clock in the night, accused-Rajesh break through into his house, upon which both his daughters (Kusma and Sona Devi) woke up after hearing the sound and started raising alarm. Consequently, accused-Rajesh opened a fire from his country-made pistol, which hit on the right shoulder and temples (kanpati) of his daughter Kusma (P.W.2). On the noise of fire everyone woke up and then the accused-Rajesh ran away from his house. Vishambhar, Baburam and other people of the village had chased the accused-Rajesh, however, due to night, they could not catch the accused-Rajesh. The informant Vidyadhar (P.W.1), his family members and villagers saw the accused-Rajesh in the torch light clearly and identified him. It has also been alleged that accused-Rajesh is thief and has went several times to jail for committing theft.

4. The evidence of P.W.9-Mohd. Musheer shows that on 04.08.2000, he was posted as Constable Moharrir at police station Ataria, district Sitapur. On that date, at about 06:15 a.m., informant-Vidyadhar (P.W.1), his injured daughter (P.W.2-Kusuma), his brother Sridhar and Suresh etc. came at police station Ataria, district Sitapur and P.W.1-Vidyadhar filed his written FIR on the basis of which he prepared the chik FIR (Ext. Ka.1). He, thereafter, sent the injured Kusma (P.W.2) along with Constable Ram Kumar Rawat for medical examination.

5. A perusal of the chik FIR shows that the distance between the place of incident and Police Station Ataria was 12 kilometer. It is significant to mention that a perusal of the chik FIR also shows that on its basis a case under Sections 452 , 307 I.P.C. was registered against appellant-Rajesh.

6. The evidence of SI Dhruv Dutt Tripathi (P.W. 8), in short, shows that on 03.08.2000, he was posted as Sub-Inspector at police station Ataria, District Sitapur. On 04.09.2000, after registration of the F.I.R., investigation wa