Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2376

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
MS. SABINA, MR. SATYEN VAIDYA, JJ
MUKESH ALIAS BITTU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 240 of 2017 | CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 281 of 2017

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT. SHEETAL VYAS
For the Respondents: SHRI. KAMAL KANT

Inconsistent eyewitness testimonies and failure to establish facts beyond reasonable doubt led to the reversal of convictions and acquittal in a murder case.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 447, 147, 506, 323, 325, 452 & 302 read with Section 149 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3 (1)(v)(x) - Conviction appeal - Convicts argued against the conviction and sentence imposed upon them for murder, assault, and related charges; prosecution’s case rendered doubtful due to inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies and alibi; doubts regarding motive and independent verification of facts emerged. (Paras 30, 31, 32)

(B) Burden of Proof - Criminal jurisprudence demands that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (Para 31)

Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that the convicts assaulted the complainant’s family over a land dispute leading to a murder charge, but evidentiary discrepancies and witness credibility were raised during trial.

Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt leading to the acquittal of all accused except the convicts, whose conviction was set aside due to procedural errors in evaluating evidence.

Issues: The court analyzed the reliability of witness statements, the timeline of the alleged crime, and the relevance of circumstantial evidence in relation to the accused's defense.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that prosecution evidence was inconsistent, raising doubts and casting shadows on the veracity of claims made, thus reversing the lower court’s decision.

Result: Criminal Appeal No. 240 allowed; Conviction and sentence set aside; Criminal Appeal No. 281 dismissed.

Table of Content
1. facts outline the altercation and the resulting prosecution of the accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 6 , 8)
2. illustrates the conflict between the complainants and the accused concerning land rights. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 29)
3. the court finds inconsistencies in witness statements affecting the credibility of the prosecution. (Para 10 , 12 , 30)
4. outcome of appeals based on evidence insufficiency leading to acquittal. (Para 31 , 32 , 34)

JUDGMENT

Both these appeals are being decided by a common judgment as these arise out of the same judgment and involve identical questions of facts and law.

2. Learned Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Sirmour at Nahan tried the following persons for offences under Section s 447 , 147, 506, 323, 325, 452 & 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and also Section 3 (1)(v)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989, in Sessions Trial No. 9-ST/7 of 2015.

1. Ram Swaroop, Son of Sh. Mast Ram, Resident of Village Kashmali, PO Sanaura, Tehsil and PS Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P.

2. Asha Devi, Wife of Sh. Ram Swaroop, Resident of Village Kashmali, PO Sanaura, Tehsil and PS Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P.

3. Mukesh@ Bittu, Son of Sh. Ram Swaroop, Resident of Village Kashmali, PO Sanaura, Tehsil and PS Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P.

4. Naveen Kumar @ Vipin, Son of Sh. Ram Swaroop, Resident of Village Kashmali, PO Sanaura, Tehsil and PS Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P.

5. Pravee Kumar @ Mithun, Son of Sh. Ram Swaroop, Resident of Village Kashmali, PO Sanaura, Tehsil and PS Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P.

6. Anju Kumari, Wife of Sh. Praveen Kumar @ Mithun, Resident of Village Kashmali, PO Sanaura, Tehsil and PS Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P.

7. Naveen Dhiman, Son of Sh. Ragwa Nand, Resident of Village Chandol, PO Drabla, Tehsil and PS Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P.

3. Vide Judgment dated 31.12.2016, Mukesh @ Bittu and Parveen Kumar@ Mithun, both sons of Ram Swaroop, were convicted for offences under Sections 323 , 325 and 302 of IPC and sentenced as under: -

Sr. Name of Offence Sentence No convict Substantive Fine Default sentence sentence

1. Mukesh @ 302 IPC Rigorous Rs.10,000/- Simple Bittu imprisonment imprisonment for for life. one year.

323 IPC Rigorous Rs. 1,000/- Simple imprisonment imprisonment for for one year. three months.

325 IPC Rigorous Rs. 5,000/- Simple imprisonment imprisonment for six for three years months

2. Praveen 302 IPC Rigorous Rs.10,000/- Simple Kumar @ imprisonment imprisonment for Mithun for life. one year.

323 IPC Rigorous Rs. 1,000/- Simple imprisonment imprisonment for for one year. three months.

Rigorous 325 IPC Rs. 5,000/- Simple imprisonment imprisonment for six for three years months.

4. All other accused persons were acquitted of all the charges.

5. In Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 2017, convicts Mukesh @ Bittu and Praveen Kumar@ Mithun, have assailed their conviction ordered vide judgment dated 31.12.2016 and sentence order of the same date passed by the learned Special Judge, Sirmour at Nahan in Sessions Trial No. 9-ST/7 of 2015. In Criminal Appeal No. 281 of 2017, State has assailed the aforesaid judgment insofar as it recorded the acquittal of other accused persons.

6. The case as set up by the prosecution was that on 16.10.2014, a written complaint No.197/RGH, dated 16.10.2014 scribed by Mohan Singh (PW-1) was received at Police Station Rajgarh through Neeta Ram (PW-18). ASI Ram Swaroop accompanied by H.C. Ramesh Chand No. 501 and C. Ajay Kumar No. 403 and PW-18 Neeta Ram reached Ram Nagar in relation with aforesaid complaint, where PW-1, Mohan Singh got recorded his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C (Ext. PW1/A) alleging inter alia; 6.1. That in the year 2012 he along with his younger brother Neeta Ram had purchased the lqand comprised in Khasra No.859/737 measuring 5 bighas 2 Biswas (Ghasni) at village Kashmali Salogni from Vidya Sagar (PW-2) and other residents of Ram Nagar. Their ancestral land measuring 9 bighas 17 Biswas (Ghasni) was also adjace

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2376

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESHMS. SABINA, MR. SATYEN VAIDYA, JJMUKESH ALIAS BITTU – AppellantVersusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – RespondentCRIMINAL APPEAL No. 240 of 2017 | CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 281 of 2017

Inconsistent eyewitness testimonies and failure to establish facts beyond reasonable doubt led to the reversal of convictions and acquittal in a murder case.

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
MS. SABINA, MR. SATYEN VAIDYA, JJ
MUKESH ALIAS BITTU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 240 of 2017 | CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 281 of 2017