Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, ALOK KUMAR VERMA, JJ.
Sonu S/o. Pitamber - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 307 of 2014
Decided On : 14-09-2022
Circumstantial Evidence - Murder - Indian Penal Code, Section 302, Section 34 - The judgment discusses the principles of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof on the prosecution. It highlights the need for complete and conclusive evidence to establish guilt in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The court emphasizes the importance of credible and reliable evidence and the need to exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The judgment also underscores the weakness of extra-judicial confessions and the requirement for the prosecution to prove the presence and participation of the accused in the crime.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of the deceased, based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution's case rested on witness testimonies, recovery of a weapon, and a confession by the appellant. The appellant appealed against the judgment and sentence, claiming innocence and false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence presented by the prosecution and found that the circumstances relied upon to establish the guilt of the appellant were not fully proved and conclusive. The court highlighted discrepancies in witness testimonies, lack of support for the recovery of the weapon, and the weakness of the extra-judicial confession. The court emphasized the need for credible and reliable evidence to establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency and credibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution, the reliability of witness testimonies, and the strength of the circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles of circumstantial evidence, the need for complete and conclusive evidence, and the requirement to exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The judgment underscored the weakness of extra-judicial confessions and the burden on the prosecution to prove the presence and participation of the accused in the crime.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. The appellant's bail bonds were discharged.
JUDGMENT :
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
The present Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 17.09.2014, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.212 of 2009, “State vs. Sonu and Others”, by which, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine, the defaulter convict is directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution story as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidence on record is that the informant Satya Pal (PW1) had lodged an FIR (Ext.Ka.3) through his written information (Ext.Ka.1) that on 26.04.2009, his father Amar Singh was doing his duty of gate keeper at the railway gate of Village Kudi Bhagwanpur from 06:00 p.m. to 06:00 a.m. At around 10:30 p.m., he (informant) was going with his uncle Kaliya to give tea to his father. He saw Pitamber and his sons Shravan Kumar, Saurav Kumar and Sonu (appellant) coming from the Railway gate. When he and his uncle Kaliya reached the gate, he saw that his father was lying dead. At that time, blood was oozing from his head. It has also been stated in the written information that there was a dispute with Pitamber regarding the way. His father was threatened several times by Pitamber and his sons, and, Pitamber and his sons have committed the murder of his father.
3. The First Information Report (Ext. Ka.3) was registered on 27.04.2009 at 00.30 hrs. against Pitamber, Sharavan Kumar, Saurav Kumar and Sonu (appellant).
4. Bhuvnesh Kumar Sharma(PW 11) reached the spot and prepared an inquest report (Ext. Ka.10). The dead body of the deceased was sent to the Government Hospital, Roorkee for post-mortem. The post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. S.N. Singh (PW 8) at 1.30 p.m. on 27.04.2009.
5. The matter was investigated. On 30.5.2009, a Panchayat was held in the house of Kharak Singh (PW 7). In the said Panchayat, Sonu (appellant) had confessed that he had made a mistake. The appellant was arrested on 11.06.2009 from his house. On 11.06.2009, in his statement, the appellant confessed his guilt before the police. The confessional statement of the appellant led to the recovery of a Patal (material Ext.9), used in the crime. The said Patal was recovered from the sugarcane field in the presence of the informant Satyapal (PW 1) and Aman Kumar (PW 3). A recovery memo (Ext. Ka.7) was prepared.
6. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet (Ext. Ka.9) was submitted by the Investigating Officer Sub-Inspector Shanti Kumar (PW10) against Sonu (appellant), Shishpal, Anand and Satish.
7. The case was committed to the Court of Session.
8. The charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was framed. The appellant and co-accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. The learned Trial Court recorded the statements of 12 prosecution’s witnesses.
10. The appellant pleaded innocence and false implication in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
11. Defence witness Ravi Kumar (DW 1) and the witness Bablesh (DW 2) were examined.
12. The learned Trial Court heard arguments, appreciated the evidence and held that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. At the same time, the learned Trial Court acquitted the co-accused Shishpal, Anand and Satish from the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
13. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, awarded by the learned Trial Court, the appellant appealed to this Court.
14. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that there was no eye-witness of the alleged offence; the appellant was not
AI
The judgment establishes the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must present complete and conclusive evidence to establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. It....
The court emphasized that in criminal cases, mere suspicion cannot substitute for proof, and a complete chain of circumstantial evidence is essential for conviction.
The judgment establishes the importance of conclusive and credible evidence in criminal cases, the admissibility of confession, the need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the principle that....
The judgment establishes the importance of a complete chain of evidence and a clear motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence. It also highlights the significance of Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.....
The judgment underscores that mere suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal cases, particularly when relying on circumstantial evidence.
The judgment underscores the necessity of establishing a complete chain of circumstances and the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
The judgment establishes that a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a clear and conclusive chain of evidence, and that extra-judicial confessions must be corroborated by relia....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; reliance on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken chain linking the accused to the crime.
The court reaffirmed that conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires clear establishment of motive, last seen theory, and connections through unbroken chains of evidence.
Appeals against acquittal warrant interference only if trial findings perverse or impossible; circumstantial case fails without complete chain excluding innocence, as here due to witness inconsistenc....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
