SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 3134

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
SANGEETA CHANDRA, MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN, JJ.
Jaimangal Yadav - Appellant
Versus
The State Of U.P – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 548 of 2002
Decided On : 08-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Lt Col Retd Ss.Yadav, Abhineet Jaiswal.

For a conviction based on extra-judicial confession, corroborative evidence is essential, and any substantial contradictions in testimonies undermine its reliability.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Conviction for murder - Appellant convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. Court held that conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, including an alleged extra-judicial confession and recovery of weapon. However, these pieces of evidence were contradicted and not corroborated by reliable proof, leading to doubts about their veracity. The trial court's reliance on weak evidence resulted in a manifest illegality. (Paras 22-42)

Facts of the case:
Informant alleged that appellant killed deceased with a weapon after a dispute. Appellant was found hiding and confessed to the informant. Injuries indicated death by blunt force and a sharp weapon. Investigating Officer recovered the weapon, but issues arose regarding the circumstances of the recovery and contradictions in witness testimonies.

Findings of Court:
Trial court's conviction was not supported by consistent evidence; hence conviction was overturned.

Issues: The main issues were the reliability of the alleged extra-judicial confession and the admissibility of the circumstantial evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that extra-judicial confessions are generally weak evidence and require corroboration to support a conviction. In this case, inconsistencies in testimonies and lack of substantial evidence led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Result: Appeal allowed; the appellant acquitted of all charges.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. arguments challenging prosecution evidence. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
3. court's analysis of circumstantial evidence. (Para 22 , 24 , 25)
4. principles governing extra-judicial confession. (Para 26 , 29)
5. appellant acquitted due to insufficient evidence. (Para 36 , 40 , 42)

JUDGMENT :

Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J.

1. Heard Shri Abhineet Jaiswal, learned Amicus for the appellant as well as Smt. Meera Tripathi, learned AGA for the State- respondent and perused the record.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant- Jaimangal Yadav under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 8.03.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda in Session Trial No. 272/96 (State Vs. Jaymangal Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No. 154 of 1996, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Gonda, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced with rigorous life imprisonment, and fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of fine to further undergo for three months rigorous imprisonment.

3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the instant appeal are that the informant, namely, Bhagwan Prasad has lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda alleging that he is a resident of Karnailganj, Gonda and is having his Coal Depot at Faizabad by-pass in the vicinity of village Budhai Purwa in the name of Saket Coal Traders where deceased Bhagwati Prasad Tiwari was working as clerk and appellant Jaimangal Yadav was employed as Chaukidar pertaining to the incident occurred on 29.2.1996 at about 6.30 a.m. .

4. It is further stated that on 29.2.96 he along with Shiv Shankar Tiwari and Shiv Bhagwan, after attending a B.D.C. Meeting, came to his Coal Depot and found his clerk Bhagwati Prasad Tiwari dead as he has been assaulted brutally on his head and thereafter he launched a search for appellant Jaimangal Yadav and he was found in the 'Arhar Field' situated nearby and after seeing the informant and his associates he started fleeing but was overpowered and apprehended and thereafter he confessed his guilt in terms that the deceased had levelled false allegation of theft against him and had not paid him his dues, so today at about 6.00 a.m. he assaulted the deceased with 'sabbal' on his head whereby he died and hid himself in the Arhar Field. It is also stated by the informant that he has tied the appellant with a rope at his coal depot and has come to lodge the FIR.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid written information an FIR in case Crime No. 154/1996 under Section 302 IPC was registered at Kotwali Nagar, Gonda and the investigation was entrusted to S.S.I. Shri Deepchand Tiwari.

6. The Investigating Officer arrived at the scene of the crime and prepared the inquest report and took the appellant in custody. Appellant while in the custody of police confessed his guilt before the Investigating Officer and there after on his pointing out a blood stained 'Sabbal' was recovered from the heap of coal situated nearby.

7. The Investigating Officer after completion of necessary paper work sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem and the postmortem of the deceased was conducted by the Dr. C.M.R. Singh on 1.3.1996 at 4.05 P.M. The age of the deceased was found about 35 years. The rigor mortis was present in his whole body and following injuries were noted on his person:-

(i) Lacerated wound 3c.m. x 0.5c.m. Skull cavity deep, on left side of forehead 1.5 c.m. above left eye brow.

(ii) Lacerated wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x skull cavity deep on the left forehead just above left eye brow.

(iii) Lacerated wound 4.5 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. x skull cavity deep on left side of head, 1.5 c.m. above injury no.2.

(iv) Incised wound 2 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x skull cavity deep on left side of head, 4.5 c.m. above left ear.

(v) Lacerated wound 2.5 c.m. x .5 c.m. x through & through left ear pinna.

8. O

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top