Back
2022 Supreme(UK) 322
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, Alok Kumar Verma, JJ.
Manish Chaudhary - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 137 Of 2014 with Criminal Appeal No. 163 Of 2014 with Criminal Appeal No. 245 Of 2014
Decided On : 28-07-2022
For the Appellant : Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel, Mrs. Neetu Singh, learned counsel.
For the Respondent:Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General.
The judgment underscores the requirement for conclusive evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence and the importance of admissible evidence and witness consistency in establishing guilt.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeals - Conviction and Sentence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 120B, 201, Arms Act, 1959, Section 25
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted and sentenced for various offenses including murder and possession of arms. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence and the circumstances did not conclusively prove the guilt of the appellants. The court highlighted inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of admissible evidence.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence, admissibility of electronic records, witness credibility, and the application of circumstantial evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for complete and conclusive evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence. It also highlighted the importance of admissible evidence, witness consistency, and the exclusion of unput circumstances in the accused's examination.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT :
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.)
1. These three Criminal Appeals have been filed by the appellants against a common judgment dated 16.04.2014/17.04.2014, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2010, “State of Uttarakhand vs. Manish Chaudhary and Another”, Sessions Trial No. 274 of 2008, “State of Uttarakhand vs. Avinash alias Munnu”, and, in Sessions Trial No. 275 of 2008, “State of Uttarakhand vs. Avinash alias Munnu”.
2. The appellant Manish Chaudhary has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “IPC”), and, he has been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC with default imprisonment in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2010.
3. The appellant Avinash alias Munnu has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B of IPC, and, he has been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC with default imprisonment in Sessions Trial No. 274 of 2008.
4. The appellant Avinash alias Munnu has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 with default imprisonment in Sessions Trial No. 275 of 2008.
5. These three Criminal Appeals are connected appeals, therefore, these appeals are being decided by this common judgment.
6. Briefly stated the prosecution case as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidence on record is that, on 26.05.2007, on receipt of an information from Mahesh Kumar (PW16), the then Gram Pradhan, regarding the recovery of an unidentified dead body, Rajeev Rauthan (PW10) reached the spot and initiated the inquest proceedings. The post-mortem examination of the unknown dead body, aged about 38 years, was conducted by Dr. R.S. Chauhan (PW6) on 27.05.2007 at 3:10 p.m.
7. According to Dr. R.S. Chauhan, death was caused from the firearm and the deceased died about one and a half days before the post-mortem examination. He handed over the Kurta, Pajama, Underwear and a metallic Chain, worn by the deceased, and two bullets, recovered from the dead body, to the police.
8. On 27.05.2007, a written information (Ext.Ka-1) was given by the informant Rishi Pal (PW1) to the Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar that on 25.05.2007, his twin brother Krishna Pal alias Lala (deceased) along with his four friends, namely, Pramod (PW2), Shekhar (PW7), Narendra alias Dhapa (PW14) and Anang Pal (PW3) went to Roorkee in Anang Pal’s car to meet Avinash alias Munnu (appellant). Krishna Pal had informed Avinash on his (Avinash) mobile phone no. 9759171736 that he was coming to Roorkee and asked him when he (Avinash) could meet him. After some time, Avinash reached Roorkee in a Maruti car. There were also three unknown persons in that Maruti car. There was some conversation between Krishna Pal and Avinash and after that Krishna Pal sat in Avinash’s car. Anang Pal was asked to come with his car behind his (Avinash) car. After this, they started going by car from the side of the canal on the way to Kaliyar at around 9:30 p.m. After going some distance from the car, Avinash asked Anang Pal and his (Anang Pal) other companions to stay at the farm house and took Krishna Pal and his (Avinash) companions in his car. After some time, Anang Pal was called from Krishna Pal’s phone that the Police had been raided, and he was asked to run away from the farm house. Anang Pal went to Muzaffarnagar with his friends. When Krishna Pal did not reach
