Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(UT) 3001
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit, JJ
Pintoo S/o Rajpal – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 11 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Lalit Belwal
For the Respondents: Mr. J.S.Virk
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is essential for conviction; gaps in evidence and hostile witnesses can lead to acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment set aside - Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as critical witness turned hostile and key evidence was lacking—The accused-appellant charged with murder was acquitted due to insufficient evidence and benefit of doubt. (Paras 26 and 27)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for murdering the wife of PW1. The incident reportedly occurred during the absence of PW1, leading to disputed eyewitness accounts. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence without sufficient corroboration.
Findings of Court:
The evidence presented lacked credibility, with the key witness turning hostile and no direct evidence linking the accused to the crime.
Issues: Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof necessary for conviction due to gaps and inconsistencies in the evidence, particularly the hearsay nature of witness testimonies and the lack of forensic corroboration.
Result: The appeal was allowed and the appellant acquitted of all charges.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. incident leading to charges and initial investigation. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defense arguments on the credibility of evidence and lack of witnesses. (Para 5 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. court's observation on the lack of reliable evidence. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. outcome based on insufficient evidence for conviction. (Para 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT
Coram: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Per: Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This appeal preferred by the appellant from jail is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 8/9.02.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No.41 of 2015, State of Uttarakhand vs. Pintoo, whereby the Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo six months’ additional imprisonment.
2. Facts, in nutshell, are that PW1 Gurmeet Singh lodged an FIR with PS Vikas Nagar, Dehradun on 10.11.2014, at 10:15 AM with the averments that on 10.11.2014 at 6:30 AM, he had gone to get milk from a shop, meanwhile, the present appellant entered the informant house and injured his wife Shaloo on her head. The informant in the injured condition took his wife to Kalindi Hospital, where the Doctor declared her dead. On the basis of this FIR, a case was registered against the accused-appellant under Section 304 IPC.
3. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation of the case and after doing necessary formalities and arresting the accused, besides recovery of weapon used in the crime, submitted a charge-sheet against the accused (appellant herein) in the court. The Trial Court, finding sufficient grounds, framed charges against the accused under Section 304 IPC on 16.05.2015, and in alternative, under Section 302 IPC. The accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined PW1 Gurmeet Singh, PW 2 Constable Chandra Ballabh, PW3 Dr. Rajneesh Kumar Singh, PW4 Fool Singh, PW5 Rann Singh, PW6 Mukesh, PW7 Brijbala, PW8 Dr. K.B.Joshi and PW9 Inspector Digpal Singh Kohli. In documentary evidence, the documents Exts.Ka-1 to Ext.Ka-11 as well as the report of Forensic Science Laboratory were also filed.
5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which, the accused-appellant stated that he was innocent, the prosecution story was false and claimed trial. No defence evidence was produced by the accused, although in statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., he stated that he wanted to produce his defence.
6. After examination of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Trial Court found the prosecution story to be proved against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, it convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as mentioned hereinabove. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred by the accused from the jail.
7. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant as well as learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and perused the entire documents available on record.
8. PW1 Gurmeet Singh, who is the informant of the case, has stated in examination-in-chief that on 10.11.2014, at 6:30 AM, he had gone to get milk. In the meantime, the accused- appellant entered into his house and injured his wife by causing injury on her head. In injured condition, he took his wife to the hospital where the doctor declared her dead. The appellant resides in his neighbourhood. He used to keep evil eye on his wife. The appellant quarrelled his wife several times. Although, he (PW1) stopped the appellant to go to his house, but he continued to do so forcibly. He dictated the report to Pradhan Rann Singh which he has proved. He has also proved his signatures on the recovery memo, i.e., blood stained bag and pieces of plain and
