Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(All) 2630
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J
Daya Prasad alias Vyas Ji – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Special Criminal Case No. 43 of 2009 | Case Crime No. 378 of 2008
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mrs. Gunjan Sharma, Sri Saghir Ahmad, Sri Rajarshi Gupta
For the Respondents: Sri Vikas Goswami
The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt; procedural lapses in evidence collection can invalidate confessions and recoveries, impacting the conviction's legitimacy.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 201, 377; Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Section 3(2)(v) - Conviction for the murder of a minor - Accused sentenced to life imprisonment - Reliance on confession and recoveries, but procedural lapses occurred in collection of evidence - Prosecution failed to establish ownership of the recovery site and inconsistencies were present in witness testimonies. (Paras 1-46)
(B) Criminal Procedure - The adherence to procedural safeguards during investigation is critical; failures in procedure can lead to inadmissibility of evidence, as evidenced through multiple case references and previous rulings stressing the importance of following prescribed legal procedures for gathering evidence. (Paras 29-43)
Facts of the case:
The conviction arose after the accused was implicated in the murder of a 13-year-old boy, with bodies recovered by police based on confessional statements. Complicating matters, multiple witnesses provided contradictory statements about the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the boy, leading to significant doubts regarding the prosecution's case.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found that the prosecution failed to connect the accused to the crime conclusively and that key procedural elements related to evidence collection were not adhered to. The importance of verifying the ownership of recovery sites and securing reliable witness testimonies was emphasized.
Issues: The main issues included whether procedural lapses in confession statements and recoveries invalidated the prosecution's evidence and whether the contradictory witness accounts undermined the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's failure to meet the required evidentiary standards of proof and procedural compliance warranted an overturning of the conviction, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details and the incident background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. investigation procedures and evidence collection. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. witness accounts and testimonies. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. expert testimonies and medical evidence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. defense arguments regarding false implication. (Para 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. contradictions in witness testimonies. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. admissibility of confessions and recoveries. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 8. lack of evidence connecting recovery to the accused. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 9. procedural flaws in investigations. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 10. legal principles regarding confessions and recoveries. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 11. reflections on investigative practices. (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 12. consolidated findings and necessary actions. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 13. final judgment and order of acquittal. (Para 44 , 45 , 46) |
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.5.2013, passed by the Special Judge ( SC / ST Act ), Banda, in Special Criminal Case No. 43 of 2009 (State v. Daya Prasad alias Vyas Ji), arising out of Case Crime No.378 of 2008, Police Station Girvan, District Banda, whereby the accused appellant Daya Prasad alias Vyas Ji has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.25,000/-, each, under S.302 IPC read with S.3(2)(v) SC / ST Act ; ten years rigorous imprisonment under S.377 IPC along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and five years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/-, each, under S.201 IPC and on failure to deposit fine to undergo one year, six months and three months, respectively, additional rigorous imprisonment have been given. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. The informant is the father of the deceased who has made a written report stating that his 13 year old son Ram Babu had gone out of the house at about 2.00 pm on 13.10.2008. Despite efforts made, he could not be found. On 16.10.2008 at about 12.00 in the afternoon a telephone call was received on the mobile of his nephew (sister's son) No. 9005274183 that the missing boy has been found cut in pieces on the railway track. On receiving such information the informant (P.W. - 1) tried to contact the informant on his phone number. The person concerned identified himself as Narayan Babu Shivhare of Village Arjunah. The informant along with his son Ram Gulam came to the concerned village and inquired about his missing son. The caller i.e. Narayan Babu Shivhare intimated the informant that Daya Prasad Tiwari alias Vyas Ji (the accused) had actually made the phone call from his number and had given information that the deceased has died in a train accident. The informant was also intimated that the caller Daya Prasad Tiwari alias Vyas Ji (hereinafter referred to as the accused) was living in a rented room at Khurand. The informant along with his son came to Khurand and met the accused, who took them to a tea shop. On the pretext of urination the accused left the shop and fled. The informant along with his son ultimately apprehended the accused in the forest at a distance of about two kilometres and inquired about his son. The accused confessed that on 14.10.2008 the brother - in - law of the deceased, namely, Shyam Sundar had met him at the station and asked him to return the deceased to his house. The accused, thereafter, took the deceased Ram Babu to his village Pataura in the intervening night of 15/16.10.2008 and committed unnatural offence on him and thereafter has murdered him. He also disclosed that the dead body is buried in his house. On this disclosure the informant alongwith his son brought the accused to police station. A written report (Exhibit Ka - 1), dated 17.10.2008 was made to the Police which forms the basis of the first information report in Case Crime No. 378 of 2008, under S.377/302/201 IPC and 3(2)(v) SC / ST Act , Police Station Girvan, District Banda.
3. The police came to
