Back
2012 Supreme(UK) 714
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Barin Ghosh & U.C. Dhyani, JJ.
Sher Mohammad - Appellant
versus
State of Uttaranchal - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2005
Decided on : 30.11.2012
Advocate Appeared:
Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sourabh Adhikari, Advocate and Mr. Mritunjaya K. Chand, Amicus Curiae for the Appellant.
Mr. V.P. Bahuguna, Brief Holder for the State / Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence, 'last seen' evidence, and scientific evidence to prove the guilt of the accused in a murder case.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence under Section 302 IPC, the concept of 'last seen' with the accused, and the importance of circumstantial evidence in proving the guilt of the accused. The court also highlighted the significance of identification proceedings and the admissibility of scientific evidence in establishing the commission of the crime.
Fact of the Case:
The complaint was lodged on the discovery of a dead body in a hotel. The accused was found guilty of the murder of the victim, and the appeal against the conviction was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence, 'last seen' evidence, and scientific evidence of poison found in the victim's body.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the identification of the accused, the circumstances of the victim's death, and the admissibility of scientific evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the concept of 'last seen' with the accused, the chain of circumstantial evidence, and the admissibility of scientific evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant were affirmed. The appellant's bail was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender to receive the sentence.
Per: U.C. Dhyani, J.
In the instant case, the criminal law was set into motion on the complaint of Raees Ahmad s/o Jameel Ahmad alias Kallu r/o Meerut, which (complaint) was addressed to the Inspector In-Charge Kotwali, Mallital, Nainital. According to the informant, he came to know through the newspaper ‘Dainik Jagran’ of 20.09.2001 that the dead body of his brother-in-law Abdul Kareem was found in Mayur Hotel, Nainital. When Raees Ahmad enquired from the wife of Abdul Kareem, she (Naeema) told that Abdul Kareem brought Rs.10,000/– on 09.09.2001. Prior to 09.09.2001, Abdul Kareem took Rs.60,000/– from home and paid the money to Sher Mohammad r/o Meerut. Naeema told that Abdul Kareem was doing the business with Sher Mohammad, who was the resident of the same mohalla (locality) in which Abdul Kareem resided. Abdul Kareem and Sher Mohammad were good friends. On 11.09.2001, Shakeel Ahmad and Nafees saw Abdul Kareem in the company of Sher Mohammad at Sohrab Gate Bus Station. On being enquired, Abdul Kareem said that they were going to Nainital. On coming to know of the death of Abdul Kareem, informant Raees Ahmad along with Merajuddin, Arshad Ali and Wali went to Mayur Hotel at Nainital, to verify the death of Abdul Kareem. When the manager and waiter of the hotel were shown the photographs of Abdul Kareem, they confirmed Abdul Kareem’s death saying that Sher Mohammad and Abdul Kareem stayed together in the hotel in the night. The manager and waiter said that Sher Mohammad also stayed in the hotel on 06.09.2001 earlier. The informant suspected that Sher Mohammad killed Abdul Kareem for the sake of money. On the basis of the said complaint, chik FIR was lodged in P.S. Mallital, Nainital, on 20.09.2001 at 07:35 p.m., which was registered as case crime no. 1048/2001 under Section 302 IPC. The occurrence took place sometimes in the intervening night of 12/13.09.2001, and since the informant came to know of the death of Abdul Kareem only through the newspaper published in Meerut, therefore, there appeared to be no delay in lodging FIR.
2. After the investigation of the case, a charge sheet against Sher Mohammad was submitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. When the trial began and prosecution opened it’s case, a charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was framed against Sher Mohammad, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined nine witnesses, viz., PW1 Godhan Singh (Manager, Mayur Hotel), PW2 Raees Ahmad (informant), PW3 Naeema (wife of deceased), PW4 Shakeel Ahmad (witness of having last seen victim in the company of accused), PW5 Puran Singh (bearer of Mayur Hotel), PW6 SI Umesh Tiwari, PW7 SSI Rakesh Chandra Thapaliyal, PW8 Sheeldhar Singh, SDM, Etmatpur, Agra (Identification Magistrate) and PW9 Inspector Bachan Singh Rana (Investigating Officer). Thereafter, the incriminating evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. in detail, in which he denied the allegations and said that he was falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge, Nainital found Sher Mohammad guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced appropriately. Aggrieved against the said order of conviction and sentence, present Criminal Appeal was preferred.
3. PW1 Godhan Singh said that the accused stayed in Mayur Hotel on 12.09.2001, in the fake name of Raju s/o Budh Prakash r/o Main Market, Bareilly. Another person (victim) accompanied Raju. The other person was introduced by Raju as his brother. They stayed together in Room No. 9 of Mayur Hotel, Nainital. When they were requested to make an entry in the hotel register, Raju (pseudonym) asked PW1 to fill up the register himself. Waiter Pooran Singh (PW5) made an entry in the register. PW1 requested Raju (fake name) to fill up Form No. 171. Accused filled up his name, his father’s name and put in his s
