Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.
State of Uttaranchal - Appellant
Versus
Jeet Singh and Others - Respondents
Government Appeal No. 378 of 2003
Decided On : 10-04-2024
Criminal - Acquittal - IPC Sections 411, 460 - The court discussed the evidentiary standards required for circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the necessity of a complete chain of circumstances to establish guilt, leading to the acquittal of the accused under Section 460 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of a victim and theft of his licensed gun. The informant reported the incident after discovering his father's absence and subsequent murder at their farmhouse. The accused were charged based on confessions and circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court acquitted the accused of murder due to insufficient evidence, particularly the lack of a complete chain of circumstances and the unreliability of confessions. Only one accused was convicted for theft.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the charges against the accused under Section 460 IPC and whether the trial court's acquittal was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime, which was not achieved in this case.
Result: The appeal by the State was dismissed, upholding the trial court's acquittal of the accused under Section 460 IPC.
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Purohit, J.
State has come up in this appeal before this Court by challenging the judgment dated 22.07.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/3rd F.T.C., Udham Singh Nagar, Rudrapur in Sessions Trial No.8 of 1999, 272 of 1999 and 352 of 1999, whereby the said Court, at the conclusion of trial, has acquitted the accused namely Jeet Singh, Phool Chand @ Kallu, Dinesh @ Pappu and Dharmendra for the offence punishable under Section 460 of the Indian Penal Code by giving them the benefit of doubt. At the same time, co-accused Phool Chand @ Kallu was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 03 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of making payment of fine, he was directed to undergo 03 months’ additional simple imprisonment. Since respondent No.4-Dharmendra died during the pendency of appeal, hence the appeal stood abated against him by the order dated 12.06.2019.
2. The facts shorn-off unnecessary details are that a first information report was lodged on 10.04.1998 at about 10:00 P.M. by PW-1 Amrik Singh at police station Rudrapur with the averment that his father Inder Singh stayed at the farm house. On 10.04.1998, when he along with others went to the farm house in the evening, he was told by the servant Om Prakash that the father of the informant was not seen since morning. On this information, when the informant went at the second storey of the house, he saw that some unknown miscreants by putting a wooden pole from the back, climbed on the house and committed the murder of his father and at the same time also stole his father’s licensed gun of 12 bore along with a watch. On this information, the prosecution was set into the motion; the inquest report was prepared on the next day; proceedings of inquest were carried out; investigation was ensued; on 16.05.1998, accused Dinesh @ Pappu and Dharmendra admitted confessed their guilt before PW-2 Karnail Singh and PW-3 Mahendra Singh, by which, names of other accused persons came into light. On 18.05.1998, accused Phool Chand was arrested along with a double barrel gun stolen in the occurrence, for which a case under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against him. Remaining accused persons were also arrested during the course of investigation. Since, the co-accused Dharmendra was found to be less than 16 years of age at the time of occurrence, his trial was separated.
3. The charge-sheet was thereafter submitted against the accused persons and accordingly, charges were framed against them under Section 411/460 IPC, which they denied and claimed to be tried.
4. As many as 9 witnesses were produced on behalf of prosecution to prove its case. Thereafter, the statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In defence DW-1 Madan Singh was examined.
5. The trial court at the conclusion of trial has acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 460 IPC while convicted the accused Phool Chand @ Kallu under Section 411 IPC. Challenging the finding of acquittal, the State has come up in this appeal before this Court.
6. In this matter, PW-1 Amrik Singh is the informant of the case. He has reiterated the version of the FIR. PW-2 Karnail Singh and PW-3 Mahendra Singh produced on behalf of the prosecution, have stated in their statements that accused Dharmendra and Dinesh confessed their guilt of having committed the murder on Inder Singh. PW-4 Harish Singh Mehta is a witness of recovery. PW-5 Pritam Singh has deposed about confession of accused persons before him. PW-6 Surendra Pal Singh is a formal police witness, who has proved recovery of double barrel gun from accused Phool Chand @ Kallu. PW-7 Surjeet Singh is the witness who proved the Supurdginama of the wooden pillar. PW-8 Vijay Pal Gautam is a formal police witness. PW-9 SI Ram Lakhan Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the e
The judgment underscores the principle that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution's failure to establish a conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence warranted the acquittal of the accused, as inconsistencies in witness testimonies created reasonable doubt.
The appellate court reinforced the principle that acquittals should not be overturned without substantial and compelling reasons, maintaining the presumption of innocence.
The conviction under Section 302 IPC was overturned due to insufficient evidence identifying the appellants as the assailants, highlighting the need for reliable eyewitness testimony.
The judgment established the principle that an appellate court must have substantial and compelling reasons to reverse an order of acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence in favor of the ....
The judgment underscores the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence.
The presumption of innocence remains paramount; an acquittal will only be overturned if there is compelling evidence that the trial court's decision was perverse or unreasonable.
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
