Back
2017 Supreme(UK) 210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Rajiv Sharma, Sharad Kumar Sharma, JJ.
Mehboob – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 268, 293, 304, 317 of 2012
Decided On : 10-07-2017
For the Appellants : Mr. Vipul Sharma, Mr. Sajjad Ahmad, Mr. Mohd. Safdar and Mr. S.K. Shandilya.
For the Respondents: Mr. V.K. Jemini and Mr. N.S. Kanyal.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances and a strong connection between the accused and the crime to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeals - Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC - [Section 302, Section 149, Section 148, Section 147 of IPC] - The court analyzed the circumstantial evidence, last seen theory, and legal principles from cases such as Kanhaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, Ashok vs. State of Maharashtra, and Nizam and Another vs. State of Rajasthan to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the appellants-accused were involved in the murder of the deceased based on circumstantial evidence. The deceased's body was found with bullet marks, and a country-made pistol was recovered near the body. Witnesses provided statements regarding the last seen alive, gunshot noises, and the accused running from the spot.
Finding of the Court:
The court found major contradictions in the statements of witnesses, failure to prove the last seen together theory, and absence of complete chain of circumstances. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the allowance of the appeals and setting aside of the judgment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the last seen theory, and the prosecution's failure to establish a complete chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied legal principles from cases such as Kanhaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, Ashok vs. State of Maharashtra, and Nizam and Another vs. State of Rajasthan to emphasize the importance of establishing a strong connection between the accused and the crime, and the need for a complete chain of circumstances to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the judgment dated 18.09.2012 was set aside, and the appellants were not required to surrender as their bail bonds and sureties were discharged.
Rajiv Sharma, J.
1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the above-titled criminal appeals, hence the same are taken up together and are being adjudicated by this common judgment.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 18.09.2012, rendered by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Session Trial No. 429 of 1998, whereby the appellants-accused, who were charged with and tried for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to under additional imprisonment for a period of six months. They were also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment punishable under Section 148 of IPC for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of one month. They were further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment punishable under Section 147 of IPC for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of one month.
3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that PW-1 Zakir lodged an FIR on 23.05.1998 to the effect that his 20 years old son was driving tempo. He had gone out of house on 22.05.1998 at 10:00 PM. He thought that he had gone to answer the call of nature. He has gone to sleep. On 23.05.1998 at 6:00 PM, he came to know from the night watchman of village Ghodewala that the dead body of his son was lying in the field of Noor Ahmad. He went to the spot and saw bullet marks on the body of his son. A country made pistol was lying near the body. His son was killed. The postmortem was conducted and the investigation was carried out and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. The prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses in its support. The statements of the accused were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They have denied the case of the prosecution. The accused were convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, these appeals.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants have vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Learned counsel on behalf of the State has supported the judgment dated 18.09.2012.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment and record carefully.
6. According to the contents of FIR, Jahangir has left his house on 22.05.1998 at 10:00 PM. PW-1 Zakir thought that his son has gone out to answer the call of nature. He was informed at 6:00 AM in the morning by the night watchman of village Ghodewala that the dead body of his son was lying in the field of Noor Ahmad. He went there and saw the dead body of his son.
7. PW-1 Zakir is the father of the deceased. According to him, his son was 22 years old. He has gone out from his home at 10:00 PM. He was sleeping. He was informed by the night watchman of village Ghodewala at 6:00 AM that the dead body of his son was lying in the field of Noor Ahmad. He went to the spot. He found his son dead. He noticed bullet injury on the body of his son. A local made pistol and cartridges were lying on the spot. He lodged the FIR. In his cross-examination, he has not mentioned about the inimical relations with Mehboob before any authority except SHO. In his earlier FIR, he has not mentioned about the inimical relations with one of the accused namely Mehboob.
8. PW-2 Meharban has deposed that he along with Ilias were irrigating their fields. They noticed the accused and deceased going towards village Ghodewala. They recognized them with the help of torch. They did not have any conversation with them. Next day, they came to know that Jahangir was murdered. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that his statement was never recorded by the police.
9. PW-3 Meh
