Back
2023 Supreme(All) 2904
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
Poonam - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. - 480 of 2023
Decided on : 17-11-2023
For the Appellant : Ranjeet Singh, Akhilesh Kumar Vishwakarma, Anil Kumar Singh
For the Respondent: G.A., Divyansh Sharma, Sonu Malik
The court confirmed that for a case to proceed, allegations must be substantiated with timely and credible evidence, highlighting the significance of prompt action in criminal investigations.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 120B, 302, 376, 504 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Sections 3/4 - Criminal Revision challenging acceptance of final report and dismissal of protest petition in a double murder case involving minors - Court affirmed that the investigation did not substantiate allegations against accused and previous findings of suicide were supported by independent witnesses. (Paras 1 to 17)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 156(3) - Subsequent FIR was filed without timely basis and against those already accused in earlier FIR - Court emphasized the imperative of timely reporting in criminal cases to uphold justice. (Paras 5, 16)
Facts of the case:
The informant's daughter and her boyfriend were discovered dead in a well, initially deemed a double suicide, but postmortem revealed smothering, casting suspicion on the family of the girl as perpetrators due to threats over their relationship. (Paras 3, 16)
Findings of Court:
The court accepted the final police report citing lack of evidence against the accused and dismissed the protest petition focusing on the belated nature of the informant's claims. (Paras 17)
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the investigative findings, the belated filing of the complaint, and whether there was sufficient evidence to support allegations of homicide over suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no merit in the revision as the prior investigation was thorough, independent witness statements were lacking, and the belated nature of the second FIR indicated a potential misuse of judicial processes.
Result: Revision dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. circumstances surrounding the murder case. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court affirmed the procedural legitimacy of the investigation. (Para 2) |
| 3. challenge to the investigation and fir. (Para 5 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. key facts surrounding the incident and subsequent firs were established. (Para 6) |
| 5. court's insight on the evidence presented. (Para 9 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. the impact of timing on the admissibility of firs was examined. (Para 11) |
| 7. lack of witness support undermined claims in the fir. (Para 14) |
| 8. delay and implications of fir filing. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 9. final dismissal and avenues for further actions. (Para 17 , 19) |
| 10. final ruling on the dismissiveness of the revision had been articulated. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.
1. Instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 01.12.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Etawah in Final Report Case No.1048 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.110 of 2022, under Sections 120B, 302, 376, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 of POCSO) Act, Police Station Bharthana, District Etawah. By the impugned order, learned court below has accepted final report filed by the Investigating Officer after carryingout investigation into the aforesaid case and dismissed the Protest Petition filed by the informant/Revisionist.
2. I have already heard the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as leaned counsel for the respondent No.2 to 5, and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
3. The factual matrix of the case in brief are that in the instant case dead body of Ankit and Sulekha (daughter of the informant/revisionist) was found at the outskirts of the village in the well, the deceased Ankit was son of Pradeep Kumar Shakya. The informant Pradeep Kumar Shakya lodged First Information Report which was registered vide Crime No.258 of 2020, under Sections 3 02 , 201, 120B of I.P.C., just after recovery of dead body of two adolescent deceased couple. As per first FIR lodged in respect of murder of said Ankit and Sulekha, the informant who is father of Ankit, stated that his son Ankit Kumar who is aged about 17 years had developed lover affair with Sulekha daughter of named accused Ram Prasad; their relationship was going on for last one year to the knowledge of the father of girl, and for that reason family of Ram Prasad had extended threat to Ankit, the deceased that he would be seen and was threatened to be killed. On 30.03.2020 at around 7:30 pm deceased Ankit was caught by Saurabh and other named accused at his shop where he remained present for a long time with Raju @ Razi and thereafter the named accused person who included Saurabh, Rajiv, father and brother of deceased girl had gone away with the deceased towards the field. The informant’s brother Sanjeev, Ambika Prasad and his son Sachin had seen the deceased being taken away by the accused persons towards the field. On 02.04.2020 the dead body of Ankit and Sulekha were found in the well of Ahibaran, therefore the informant believed that accused persons had caused the death of informant’s son and Sulekha with whom he had developed relationship by something and had thrown their dead body into the well with a view to conceal the evidence. The inquest and postmortem of the dead body of the deceased was carried out. On 02.04.2020 in inquest report the panch witnesses who included family members of both the deceased, had expressed opinion that deceased boy and girl had committed suicide by jumping in the well. However in postmortem report of both the deceased, cause of death was found to be smothering. In the internal examination of the deceased girl hymen was found torn old and heal, her age is mentioned as 17 years (approximate). The approximate time of death was two days ago the postmortem. Vaginal swab was taken for pathological examination. Both the deceased were found to have sustained two injuries on their person which
