Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(All) 33
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
, J
Dev Bux Yadav@ Pujari – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 924 of 2013 | CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 932 of 2013 | Sessions Trial No.236 of 2010
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Avinash Kumar Srivastava
For the Respondents: Shri Umesh Verma
Circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the accused were critical in establishing guilt; lack of evidence against one co-accused led to acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 and 201 - Conviction for murder and destruction of evidence - Accused sentenced to life imprisonment and fines - Evidence supported by witness statements and confession regarding recovery of the deceased's body. (Paras 3, 4, 18, 46)
(B) Criminal Trials - Standard of proof - Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; circumstantial evidence considered. Evidence of relatives admissible if consistent and corroborated. (Paras 35, 48)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of a three-year-old girl, motivated by the belief in a tantric sacrifice for a male child. The body was recovered from the accused's residence. (Paras 4, 45)
Findings of Court:
Prosecution established the guilt of Asha Devi beyond reasonable doubt, circumstantial evidence and motive were key. The conviction of Dev Bux Yadav was overturned due to insufficient evidence. (Paras 48, 50)
Issues: The main issues included the admissibility of recovery and the evidence against each accused, particularly concerning the alibi and motivation for the crime. (Paras 12, 42)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's conduct, evidence from family members, and circumstantial evidence were sufficient to uphold the conviction, while the co-accused lacked sufficient proof of involvement. (Paras 16, 48)
Result: Appeal of Asha Devi dismissed; appeal of Dev Bux Yadav allowed, conviction set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial proceedings and case background (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the crime and investigative process (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. defendants' denials and defenses (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. arguments regarding evidence against defendants (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. court's analysis of evidentiary standards (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. admissibility of evidence under the evidence act (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. circumstantial evidence and its implications (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 8. conduct of accused and burdens of proof (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 9. considering witness validity and biases (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 10. challenging assumptions about witnesses (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 11. discussion on recovery of evidence (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 12. implications of motive in circumstantial evidence (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 13. final conclusion on evidence sufficiency (Para 48) |
| 14. final judgment and order of appeals (Para 49 , 50 , 51) |
1. Shri Avinash Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Umesh Verma, learned AGA for the State were heard at length.
2. Since both these connected criminal appeals i.e. (CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 924 of 2013 - Dev Bux Yadav@ Pujari (Tantric) vs. State Of U.P.) and (CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 932 of 2013 - Smt. Asha Devi vs.State Of U.P.) arise out of a common judgment, therefore, the same are being decided by a common judgment.
3. Instant appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 29.04.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Faizabad in Sessions Trial No.236 of 2010 arising out of Case Crime No.542 of 2010, under S.302 and S.201 IPC, P.S. Raunahi, District - Faizabad; State Vs. Dev Bux Yadav @ Pujari (Tantrik) & Smt. Asha Devi wherein accused appellants were convicted under S.302 read with S.34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/- each, with default stipulation of one month's imprisonment, under S.201 read with S.34 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5000/- each, with default stipulation of one year's rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
4. According to the prosecution version, complainant Krishan Chandra Singh @ Raju resident of Barai Khurd, P.S. Raunahi, District - Faizabad, lodged a first information report at Police Station - Raunahi on 20.6.2010 stating that his daughter Kumari Palak aged about three years is not traceable from 10.30 AM. An oral information about missing of Kumari Palak was given at police out - post Satti Chaura at about 5.00 PM. On receiving the information S.I. Mahesh Singh accompanied with constable Ajay Singh and Ajamat came to Village Barai Khurd. They inquired strictly from Asha Devi wife of Satyavir Singh @ Pintu son of Kali Prasad. Asha Devi told that she had no son. On the instigation of (Tantrik) Dev Bux Yadav @ Pujari, that if she will sacrifice one child than she will be blessed with a son, she called Kumari Palak to her house through Shivam Singh @ Shubham Singh who is brother of Asha Devi and strangulated her neck and killed her. In order to get a son, she had kept the dead body in a suitcase and kept it in a large box in her room. She can get it recovered. In the presence of Ram Pratap Singh and Mata Prasad Singh, Asha Devi opened the large box in her room in which dead body of Palak was concealed in a 24” suitcase of black colour. Dead body of Palak was lying in the house of Asha Devi.
5. On the basis of written report, first information report was lodged and investigation was handed over to the investigating officer Sumeshwar Singh who was station house officer. He proceeded to the place of occurrence and recovered the dead body. Inquest proceedings were conducted on 20.6.2010 at 9.30PM. Dead body was sealed and sent for postmortem. Postmortem was conducted on 21.6.2010 at 2.30 PM . Investigating officer prepared the site plan, recorded the statement of witnesses. After investigation charge - sheet was submitted agai
