Back
2024 Supreme(UK) 170
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, PANKAJ PUROHIT, JJ.
Suresh Mehto & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 795, 694 of 2023
Decided On : 04-07-2024
For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, learned counsel.
For the State :Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a conviction cannot stand on the basis of retracted statements and that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Murder - IPC Section 302 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 302 IPC regarding murder, emphasizing the necessity of credible evidence for conviction, particularly in cases where witnesses turned hostile, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Pradeep Kumar Paswan based on a complaint by his brother after the deceased was found dead under suspicious circumstances. The prosecution relied on witness statements, but key witnesses later turned hostile.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was built on unreliable witness testimonies, as all key witnesses declared hostile and retracted their statements made during the investigation, leading to a lack of credible evidence.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the hostile witnesses and lack of direct evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence and cannot solely support a conviction, especially when witnesses turn hostile.
Result: The appeals are allowed, and the conviction of the appellants is set aside, leading to their immediate release.
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Purohit, J.
These criminal appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 20.09.2023 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.03 of 2019 State Vs. Suresh Mehto and another, whereby, the appellants-Suresh Mehto and Rajnarayan @ Rajkumar Mehto were convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and were sentenced rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.20,000/- (each), with default stipulation of one year’s each additional simple imprisonment and the period undergone by the appellants in prison during trial, shall be set off against the sentence awarded by the Court. Hence, both the criminal appeals are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The case of the prosecution is set into motion when PW-1 Pramod Paswan-informant gave a written report in police station Sidcul, District Haridwar, stating therein that his brother-Pradeep Kumar Paswan worked in Cosmo Company in Sidcul, Haridwar and lived in the house of Rajnarayan (appellant in CRLA/ 694/2023) in Sidcul Roshnabad on rent; on 22.05.2018, he was informed by police of police station Shikarpur at late night, about the death of his brother under suspicious circumstances. At this information, he left for Haridwar with his family members from his house. When they reached Haridwar on 24.05.2018 and saw the dead body of his brother in mortuary, they found that someone had brutally murdered his brother. After completing funeral of his brother, he came to police station and lodged the first information report with a request to take legal action after reporting the case.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, on 24.05.2018 at about 21:52 hrs., a chick FIR was registered, in police station Sidcul, District Haridwar, against the unknown persons and a Case Crime/FIR No.199 of 2018 under Section 302 IPC was registered. After investigation, police submitted a charge sheet against the appellants Suresh Mehto and Rajnarayan @ Rajkumar Mehto under Section 302 read with 34 IPC in the court. Thereafter, the case was committed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar to Sessions Court after providing the copies of the prosecution case to the appellants.
4. The learned Sessions Judge, finding sufficient material, framed charges on 29.01.2019, against the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case, produced as many as ten witnesses namely PW1-Pramod Paswan (informant), PW2- Preetam Singh, PW3- Soniya, PW4-Ajay Yadav, PW5-Mantu Kumar, PW6-Head Constable Suwardhan, PW7- Senior Sub Inspector Devraj Sharma, PW8- Dr. Ajay Kumar, PW9-Sub Inspector Kamal Mohan Singh Bhandari and PW10-Sub Inspector Lakhpati Singh Butola. Apart from this, various documentary evidence was also produced, namely, written report (F.I.R.) Ext.Ka-1, Statement of Soniya under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ext.Ka-2, Statement of Ajay Yadav under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ext.Ka-3, Chick F.I.R. Ext. Ka-4, Copy of General Diary (G.D.) Ext.Ka-5, arrest/information memo of Suresh Mehto Ext.Ka-6, memo taskara inquiry Ext.Ka-7, arrest/information memo Ext.Ka-8, specimen handwriting of Suresh Mehto Ext.Ka9, Ext.Ka-10 & Ext.Ka-11, charge sheet Ext.Ka-12, F.S.L. report, Ext.Ka-13, post-mortem report Ext.Ka-14, Site Plan Ext.Ka-15, Inquest Report Ext.Ka-16, Sketch of dead body Ext.Ka-17, challan dead body Ext.Ka-18, application given to in-charge Inspector, Kotwali Nagar, Haridwar Ext.Ka-19, application to Chief Medical Officer, Haridwar Ext.Ka-20, Sample of Seal Ext.Ka-21, memo recovery of one piece of white paper Ext.Ka-22, memo recovery of blood stained one piece of carpet Ext.Ka-23, memo recovery of blood stained floor pieces Ext.Ka-24 and material evidences were also produced namely piece of paper MO-1, plastic bag (panni) MO-2, cloth material MO3, piece of carpet MO-4, plastic container MO-5, clothes material MO-6, pieces of floor MO-7, plastic contain
