Back
2011 Supreme(UK) 583
2012 (1) N.C.C. 44
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Barin Ghosh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice U.C. Dhyani
Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2002
GURUDEV SINGH & ANR. – Appellants
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
Decided on : 11.11.2011
For the Appellants :Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Advocate
For the State :Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. Govt. Advocate
Headnote:Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Secs. 3 and 27 — It is a well settled principle of law that in case where the evidence is purely circumstantial in nature, the facts and circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn must be fully established beyond any reasonable doubt and such circumstances must be consistent — And must unerringly point to the guilt of the accused — And the chain of circumstances must be established by the prosecution — Every case has to be decided on its own facts — In the present case there is no arrest memo of the accused/appellant and no disclosure memo — And although the recovery memo is there but that does not bear the signatures of any of the accused/appellant — Held — lt is true that in every case the signatures of the accused on the recovery memo might not be necessary — Likewise in every case the signatures of the accused on discovery statement might not be necessary — The evidence adduced regarding recovery of dead body in this case on the basis of confessional statement of the accused does not inspire confidence, primarily on the ground that the deceased was not last seen in the company of the accused/appellants — Also the original letter said to be handed over to one Ramdhani implicating accused/appellant was also not produced — The quality of evidence in this case is hardly convincing and therefore, not wholly acceptable — As, accused Ramdhani was given benefit of doubt — Thus, accused/appellants deserve to be given benefit of doubt like accused Ramdhani — They are accquitted of the said charges. (Paras 17, 21, 22)
Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872] /kkjk 3 vkSj 27 & ;g dkuwu dk lqLFkkfir fl)kUr gS fd ml n'kk esa tc lk{; LoHkko ls iw.kZr;k ifjfLFkfrtU; gS] rF; vkSj ifjfLFkfr;k¡ ftu ds vk/kkj ij ifj.kke ikus dh ryk'k jgrh gS] dks mfpr lansg dh ifjf/k ds ckgj iw.kZr;k fl) fd;k tkuk pkfg, vkSj os ifjfLFkfr;k¡ fujUrj cuh jguh pkfg, vkSj vfHk;qDr ds vijk/k dh vksj fcuk vojks/k ds bafxr djrh jguh pkfg, vkSj vfHk;kstu i{k }kjk ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh Ük`a[kyk dks fl) fd;k tkuk pkfg, & izR;sd dsl dk fu.kZ; blds rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fn;k tkrk gS & izLrqr dsl esa vfHk;qDr@vihykFkhZ dk fxjrkjh eheks miyC/k ugha gS vkSj uk gh izxVhdj.k eheks gS & ;|fi cjkenxh eheks miyC/k gS ijUrq ml ij vfHk;qDr@vihykFkhZ ds gLrk{kj ugha djk;s x;s & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k] ;g lR; gS fd izR;sd dsl esa cjkenxh eheks ij vfHk;qDr ds gLrk{kj fy, tkus vko';d ugha gS blh izdkj izR;sd dsl esa vfHk;qDr ds izxVhdj.k eheks ij Hkh gLrk{kj vko';d ugha gksus pkfg, & bl dsl esa vfHk;qDr ds bdckfy;k c;ku ds vk/kkj ij 'ko dh cjkenxh ls lEcfU/kr nk;j lk{; fo'oluh; ugha gS & ewyr% bl vk/kkj ij fd e`rd dks vfUre ckj vfHk;qDr@vihykFkhZ ds lkFk ugha ns[kk x;k Fkk vkSj jke/kuh dks lkSaik x;k ewy i= ftlesa vfHk;qDr@vihykFkhZ dks vkjksfir fd;k x;k Fkk Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k bl dsl esa nk;j lk{; dh izekf.kdrk eqf'dy ls fo'oluh; gS vkSj blfy, og iw.kZr;k xzkáh; ugha gS & pw¡fd vfHk;qDr jke/kuh dks lansg dk ykHk fn;k x;k Fkk blfy, vfHk;qDr@vihykFkhZ Hkh vfHk;qDr jke/kuh dh rjg lansg dk ykHk ikus dk gdnkj gS & mUgsa mDr vkjksiksa ls eqDr fd;k x;kA ¼izLrj 17] 21] 22½
[Per : Hon'ble U.C. Dhyani, J.]
This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.03.2002, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (First), Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 40 of 1998, whereby accused/appellants Gurudev Singh and Satpal Singh have been convicted under Section 364-A, 302 and 201 of I.P.C. Each one of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for life in respect of offences punishable under Section 364-A and 302 of I.P.C., and directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each on both counts. The accused/ appellants have further been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment fora period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants & learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and perused the lower court record.
3. Prosecution story, in brief, isthaton 09.03.1998, at 10:10 P.M., Sukhdev Singh (informant) gave a written report (Ext. Ka-2) in police station Sitarganj stating therein that his son Sukhdeep Singh, aged 12 years, student of Class VII in Guru Nanak Public School, Sitarganj came to his shop at 04:00 P.M. on the very day i.e. 09.03.1998 and demanded one rupee from him, which was denied to him as he was not having a currency note of denomination of Re. one at that time, but promised to give the same later. After that his son told him that he will return soon and went to his house from the shop. His school bag was found lying in front of the house. On search being made, when he was not found, Sukhdev Singh (father of the boy) gave written report of the incident to the police on the same day i.e. 09.03.1998, at 10:10 P.M. The police registered the missing report in this regard and the parents, relatives and the police made every effort to trace the missing boy, but to no avail. Meanwhile, some unknown person contacted the parents over phone, but on asking about the identity, he disconnected the phone. On 29.03.1998 at about 03:00 P.M., Sukhdev Singh handed over a letter (Ext. 1) to the police which was given to him by Ramdhani (since acquitted). After receiving said letter, police registered a case initially in respect of offence punishable under Section 364-A of I.P.C. Meanwhile, police arrested Ramdhani. Sukhdev Singh (informant) identified Ramdhani and told that he was the same person who handed over the letter to him, relating to ransom of 35,000/- in lieu of safe return of the boy. On being interrogated, Ramdhani disclosed that accused Gurudev Singh, who earlier used to work in the studio of Sukhdev Singh, with the help of his associate Satpal Singh, abducted Sukhdeep Singh alias Deepu on 09.03.1998 in the evening from his bicycle near his house. Accused Gurudev Singh was also arrested by the police. On being interrogated, accused Gurudev Singh disclosed that after adducting Sukhdeep Singh alias Deepu, he handed over the boy to Satpal Singh, who took him by bus to his residence and kept him there that night. Next day Deepu was kept in the house of accused Gurudev Singh, where on 10.03.1999, in the evening, Gurudev Singh and Satpal Singh murdered Deepu by strangulating him with the help of a piece of cloth and buried his dead body in the south-west corner in the field of Satpal Singh. Gurudev Singh's apprehension was that the boy being familiar to him might have disclosed his identity to the police, so he along with Satpal Singh murdered him on that night. Accused Gurudev Singh gave his acceptance to recover the dead body of the boy, on which P.W.6 S.I. Radhey Shyam Sharma along with Sukhdev Singh, witnesses Satyapal Singh and Paramjeet Singh got the dead body of Deepu recovered from the sugarcane field of Satpal Singh. The dead body of Sukhdeep Singh alias Deepu was identified by Sukhdev Singh and the witnesses. A recovery memo (Ext. Ka-7) was prepared. The dead body was recovered from a jute bag, and recovery memo (Ext.
