Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, Alok Kumar Verma, JJ.
State of Uttarakhand - Appellant
Vs.
Sanjay Shah and Another - Respondents
Government Appeal No.9, 11 Of 2013
Decided On : 21-07-2022
Acquittal - Criminal Law - Arms Act, 1959, Section 30 - Indian Penal Code, Section 302, Section 34 - Evidence Act, Section 25, Section 26 - Confession, Recovery of Weapon, Forensic Evidence - Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Fact of the Case:
The accused persons were acquitted from charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution's case was based on evidence including confession, recovery of weapon, and forensic examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence of confession and recovery of the weapon was not sufficient to establish the commission of the alleged offense.
Issues: The key issues included the reliability of confession, forensic evidence, and the delay in recording witness statements during the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles of criminal jurisprudence, including the inadmissibility of confessions made to police officers, the requirement for clear and cogent evidence, and the duty to ensure that suspicion does not replace legal proof.
Final Decision: The court upheld the acquittal of the accused persons, stating that they deserve the benefit of doubt. Both government appeals were dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
These two Government Appeals are directed against a common judgment dated 10.10.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No.27 of 2011, “State vs. Sanjay Shah and Another”, whereby, the learned trial court has acquitted the respondents-accused persons from the charge of Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, and, in Sessions Trial No.5 of 2012, “State vs. Sanjay Shah”, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. These two Government Appeals are connected appeals, therefore, these two Government Appeals are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution story as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidence on record is that, on 07.06.2011, the marriage of the brother of the deceased Dinesh Rawat’s wife was attended by the deceased Dinesh Rawat, his friends the deceased Ram Singh Bhandari, witness Data Ram, Constable (PW4) and witness Yashpal Singh (PW5). Dinesh Rawat’s father Narayan Singh Rawat (PW1) was also present in the said marriage. Dinesh Rawat, Ram Singh Bhandari, Data Ram and Yashpal Singh had come back from marriage ceremony at around 3.45 p.m. They had taken alcohol and their food. At around 10 p.m., Data Ram (PW4) and Yashpal Singh (PW5) had left for Ranikhet along with Dinesh Rawat in a new Maruti Wagon-R car of Dinesh Rawat. While Ram Singh Bhandari had left for Ranikhet by motorcycle. When Ram Singh Bhandari was on his way to Ranikhet, his motorcycle slipped. Ram Singh Bhandari received injuries in that accident, due to which he sat in the car of Dinesh Rawat.
3. On 08.06.2011 at around 12 O’ clock in the night, Narayan Singh Rawat, father of the deceased Dinesh Rawat, was informed by the village Pradhan that two dead bodies were found in the car of Dinesh Rawat. Narayan Singh Rawat reached the spot at around 3 O’ clock and saw that the windows of the car were closed and the dead body of Ram Singh Bhandari was lying on the front seat and the dead body of Dinesh Rawat was lying on the back seat of the car.
4. On 09.06.2011, inquest proceedings were conducted. Patwari Bhupal Giri Goswami (PW6) prepared the inquest report (Ext. Ka.5).
5. On the same day i.e. on 09.06.2011, the postmortem examination of dead bodies of Ram Singh Bhandari, aged about 27 years, and, of Dinesh Rawat, aged about 30 years, were conducted by Dr. Deep Prakash (PW13) at 02.10 p.m. and 04.00 p.m. respectively.
6. On 09.06.2011 at 05.00 p.m., an FIR (Ext. Ka.25) was registered against the unknown persons on the basis of a written report (Ext. Ka.1) of Narayan Singh Rawat (PW1).
7. The blood-stained clothes of the deceased persons were taken by the police.
8. Statements of Data Ram (PW4) (Ext.Ka.3) and Yashpal Singh (PW5) (Ext. Ka.4) under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded on 11.07.2011 and 18.07.2011 respectively. According to the statements of Data Ram and Yashpal Singh, under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they had seen the incident in the light of the motorcycle, but, the injured Dinesh Rawat had told them that the incident was caused by Sanjay Shah and Yogesh Mainali.
9. On an information of a secret informer, the accused persons, namely, Sanjay Shah and Vikas alias Yogesh Mainali were arrested on 13.07.2011. At the time of their arrest, one revolver 0.32 bore (material Ext.14) and a license of the said revolver were recovered from the possession of the accused Sanjay Shah. He confessed his guilt and stated that he and Vikas alias Yogesh Mainali had murdered Dinesh Rawat and Ram Singh Bhandari with that revolver. A recovery memo (Ext. Ka.28) was prepared by Inspector Rami Ram (PW11). According to the recovery memo, in spite of an endeavour, no independent witness could be secured. A site plan (Ext. Ka.36) was prepared by Inspector Rami Ram. The blood-stained clothes and recovered revolver were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Af
The judgment highlights the requirement for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, emphasizing the principles of admissible evidence, forensic examination, and the duty to ensure....
Conviction for murder requires proof of active participation and common intention; mere presence is insufficient for liability.
In murder cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be conclusively proven, leaving no gaps in the evidence chain for a conviction.
(1) Fact that trial/appeal should have taken years and that other accused should have died during appeal cannot be a ground for acquittal of Appellant.(2) In a criminal trial, credible evidence of ev....
It is well settled that a statement recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be treated as evidence in criminal trial but may be used for limited purpose of impeaching credibil....
Point of Law; It is well settled by plethora of judicial pronouncements by this Court that suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless prove....
Common intention – For a person to be convicted under Section 34 of IPC, there must be involvement of two or more persons with common intention to commit crime – Mere presence of accused at scene of ....
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
