Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ritu Bahri, C.J., Alok Kumar Verma, J.
State of Uttarakhand - Petitioner
Versus
Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu - Respondent
Criminal Reference No. 05 of 2018, Criminal Jail Appeal No. 49 of 2018, Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2018
Decided On : 06-08-2024
Criminal - Murder - IPC Sections 302, 392, 201 - The court discussed the evidentiary standards for circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the need for a complete chain of evidence that excludes reasonable doubt about the accused's innocence, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were accused of murdering Sarojini Devi, whose body was found buried after she went missing. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including confessions and recovered stolen items, to establish guilt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient and did not inspire confidence, highlighting contradictions and lack of direct evidence linking the appellants to the crime.
Issues: Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: In cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be established and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, leaving no reasonable doubt about the accused's innocence.
Result: The appellants are acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT :
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
The Criminal Reference and these two Appeals have arisen from a common judgment and order dated 01.12.2018/04.12.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Sessions Trial No.11 of 2017 “State of Uttarakhand vs. Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu and Others”.
2. The trial court has awarded death sentence to the appellant – accused Mukesh Thapliyal and the appellant-Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”) read with Section 34 IPC and referred the matter to this Court for confirmation of the same in terms of the provisions of Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. The appellant Mukesh Thapliyal and the appellant Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu have been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence under Section 392 IPC, and in default of payment of fine, they have been directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
4. The appellant Mukesh Thapliyal and the appellant Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence under Section 201 IPC, and in default of payment of fine, they have been directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
5. All the said sentences, except the sentence of death penalty, have been directed to run concurrently.
6. The Criminal Reference will be treated as a leading case.
7. The prosecution case briefly stated is that Shafiq Ahmed, Revenue Sub-Inspector, (PW10) received an information from Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jakholi on 05.04.2017 that Smt. Sarojini Devi, resident of village Liswalata, is missing. He and Sain Singh, Naib Tehsildar, went to Sarojini Devi’s house. Smt. Sarojini Devi could not been traced. The locks of her old house and the locks of the boxes kept in her house were broken.
8. On 06.04.2017, Pramod Singh (PW1) informed Shafiq Ahmed (PW10) over phone that the body of Sarojini Devi was buried in the field behind her house. After receiving the information, he along with Sain Singh, Naib Tehsildar, reached the spot. The buried body of Sarojini Devi was taken out. At that time a rope was also tied around her neck. On the spot, a written information (Ext. Ka. 1) was given on behalf of Smt. Leela Devi, Gram Pradhan of Gram Sabha, Liswalata and wife of Pramod Singh (PW1) to the Revenue Sub-Inspector that she had informed on 05.04.2017 that Smt. Sarojini Devi wife of Trilok Singh, resident of her village, was missing and when she was searched this morning her body was found buried in a field behind her house.
9. Shafiq Ahmed (PW10) conducted inquest proceedings. After preparing the inquest report (Ext. Ka. 2), other formalities were performed to send the dead body for post-mortem examination.
10. The post-mortem examination of the dead body of Smt. Sarojini Devi, aged about 42 years, was conducted by Dr. Vijyesh Bharadwaj (PW12) with Dr. Manoj Badoni. As per the post-mortem report (Ext. Ka. 27), cause of death was strangulation. The deceased was found to have been murdered by putting a rope around her neck. The deceased was found to have died 24 to 36 hours before post-mortem examination.
11. A First Information Report No. 1 of 2017 (Ext. Ka. 15) was lodged at Revenue Police Station, Kot Bangar on 07.04.2017 at 10 a.m. pursuant to a written information (Ext. Ka. 3) received from Vijay Rawat (PW2), the son of the deceased. The FIR (Ext. Ka. 15) was registered by Revenue Sub-Inspector Jagdish Prasad Bahuguna against unknown person under Sections 302, 201, 380 and Section 457 IPC.
12. As per the written information (Ext. Ka. 3) of Vijay Rawat (PW2), he is studying in Mumbai. He was informed on telephone on 05.04.2017 that her mother was missing since 04.04.2017. On 06.04.2017, at around 7 in the morning, he
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.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal Law – Appeal against conviction – Theory of last seen – Reliability of - The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between point of time when Accused and deceased were seen las....
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt, excluding any possibility of innocence, to sustain a conviction for murder and robbery.
Another important aspect to be considered in a case resting on circumstantial evidence is the lapse of time between the point when the accused and deceased were seen together and when the deceased is....
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
