Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(UK) 179

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, ALOK KUMAR VERMA, JJ.
Hemu Pant @ Hemu Kalu and Another - Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 336 of 2013
Decided on : 11-10-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. L.D. Joshi, Mr. R.S. Sammal, adv
For the Respondent: Mr. J. S. Virk, adv

The absence of a proven motive in a circumstantial evidence case weighs in favor of the accused and can lead to acquittal.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Sections 364, 302, and 201 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 4/25 - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC 1860 - Sections 364, 302, 201; Arms Act, 1959 - Section 4/25
Fact of the Case:

The appellants challenged their conviction for offenses under IPC and Arms Act. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including witness testimony and recovery of weapons. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and was found dead the next day.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the evidence insufficient to conclusively establish the appellants' guilt. It noted the absence of a proven motive and the recovery of weapons without blood testing. The court concluded that there was reasonable doubt regarding the appellants' involvement and acquitted them.
Issues: Insufficiency of evidence, absence of proven motive, recovery of weapons without blood testing, reasonable doubt
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of motive in a circumstantial evidence case weighs in favor of the accused. Recovery of weapons without blood testing does not conclusively connect them to the crime. Reasonable doubt regarding guilt warrants acquittal.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellants' conviction was set aside. The appellants were acquitted, and one was directed to surrender before the court.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants - Hemu Pant @ Hemu Kalu and Manish @ Kanchu Matiyani have taken exception to their conviction by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nainital in Session Trial No. 30 of 2007, 31 of 2007 and 32 of 2007 as per judgment and order dated 19.08.2013 for the offence under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereafter referred to as “the Penal Code” for brevity), and also for the offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (herein after referred to as “the Act” for brevity) and the sentences awarded thereunder in a joint Trial in four Sessions Case Nos. 30 of 2007, 31 of 2007, 32 of 2007 and 33 of 2007, which were disposed of by the same judgment.

2. The present appellants along with Lokpal Mehra, Lalit Mehra, Lakhan Singh and Atul Negi were tried for the aforesaid offences. However, the co-accused were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Nainital.

3. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution comes on 12.12.2006, a First Information Report ‘Exhibit Ka-2’ was presented by the complainant- Krishna Kumar Singh Bhakuni (Cousin of the deceased) before the S.H.O., Police Station Haldwani in the District of Nainital, inter alia, stating that in the night of 11.12.2006, he along with Tarunjeet Singh Bhakuni went to attend Reception in Subhash Nagar at the house of one Tiwari Ji. At the place of reception, it came to know that Lalit Mehra being injured was admitted in ‘Krishna Nursing Home, Haldwani’. Therefore, the complainant and others went to see him, where Lokpal Mehra, Hemu Pant, Atul Negi and Kanchu Matiyani met them outside the ‘Krishna Nursing Home’. Hemu Pant abused Tarunjeet Singh Bhakuni. A scuffle resulted. One Deepak Gangola rescued him. Thereafter, the complainant and Tarunjeet Singh Bhakuni came back to the Reception. At about 10/10:30 PM, the appellants - Hemu Pant and Kanchu Matiyani along with Lakhan Singh, Atul Negi, Lokpal Mehra and Lalit Mehra came to the place where, the reception was being held in a blue colour car. They were armed with sharp edged weapons and lathi - dande ¼ykBh&MaMs½ etc. and they started to beat Tarunjeet Singh Bhakuni and forcibly took him away in that car. The complainant further, thought that deceased would eventually come back, so after having his meal, he went to his house. In the next morning, he came to know that deceased - Tarunjeet Singh Bhakuni had not reached his house. The complainant searched him along with his family members.

On the way, he came to know that dead body was recovered from the place of Village - Prempur Loshgyani. They all reached there and saw the dead body of Tarun Bhakuni. He identified the dead body before the police and prayed for necessary legal action against the accused persons.

On the basis of F.I.R. Crime No. 159/2007 was registered for the offences stated above against all the accused persons including the present appellants and investigation was taken up.

In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the complainant and other witnesses, and on the basis of recovery of arms and the discovery statement made by Manish Matiyani, Hemu Pant and Lalit Mehra, three separate cases were registered as Crime Case Nos. 6463 of 2006, 6557 of 2006 and 159 of 2007 respectively under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.

The dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against all the accused persons. The defence took the plea of simple denial and false accusation in this case.

4. In order to proof its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and led into the evidence, several documents and material objects. PW2 - Krishna Kumar Singh Bhakuni is the informant in this case. He happens to be the cousin of the deceased. PW1 - Hemant Tiwari, PW3 - Deepak Gangola, PW4 - Rajendra Singh Negi and PW7 - Anup Singh Thathola (brother-in-law of the deceased) have not supported the case of the prosecution and ha