Back
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
MS. JUSTICE SABINA, MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA, JJ
CHAND KISHORE SON OF SH. JAGDISH PASWAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 254 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners:MS. VEENA SOOD, ADVOCATE
For the Respondents:MR. KAMAL KANT, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt using credible evidence, especially in circumstantial cases; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 363, 201 - Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 363, and 201 IPC challenged - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence including alleged recovery of child’s garment - Established evidence and proof for conviction lacking - Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, thus appellant acquitted and set free. (Paras 31, 32)
(B) Criminal Jurisprudence - Presumption of innocence - Burden of proof rests with prosecution to establish case beyond reasonable doubt - The absence of motive also plays a significant role in circumstantial evidence cases, affecting the conviction. (Paras 25, 30)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of kidnapping and murdering a missing child. Circumstantial evidence included alleged recovery of the child's Pyjama from appellant's premises which the trial court found insufficient to sustain the conviction.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's reliance on contradictory statements and insufficient evidence led to flawed conviction decisions, thereby voiding the guilty verdict against the appellant.
Issues: The appeal addressed the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the standard of proof required for conviction - emphasizing that mere suspicion does not suffice for a guilty verdict.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgments affirmed that in cases with circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and mere assumptions cannot justify a conviction.
Result: The judgment of conviction is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. circumstances of the case reveal the process of the child's disappearance. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. evidence presented was both circumstantial and questioned for reliability. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 15) |
| 3. requirement for prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 25 , 26 , 30) |
| 4. acquittal of the appellant due to insufficient evidence. (Para 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT
The appellant has assailed judgment and sentence dated 21.12.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushehr, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 0000024/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Offence(s) | Substantive sentence | Fine | Default Punishment. |
| 302 of the IPC | Imprisonment for life. | Rs.10,000/- | Simple imprisonment for two years |
| 363 of the IPC Rigorous | imprisonment for seven years | Rs. 5,000/- | Simple imprisonment for one year. |
| 201 of the IPC Rigorous | imprisonment for seven years. | Rs. 5,000/- | Simple imprisonment for one year. |
All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. In case of realization of fine, the same has been ordered to be paid to the mother of the child.
2. The prosecution case in a nutshell was that PW- 1 Ganga Devi had telephonically informed Police Station, Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P., at about 8.30 PM on 22nd April, 2013 that her son, aged about 4 years, was missing since 4-4.30 P.M from village Nirmand. The Police had helped complainant in searching the child but could not trace him. A missing report vide DDR No. 35-(A), dated 22.04.2013 Ext. PW-13/A was recorded at the police station concerned at about 10.30.PM. Despite efforts, the child could not be traced and finally on 24.04.2013 at about 2.15 P.M., FIR Ex.PW1/A was registered under Section 363 of the IPC .
3. On 24.04.2013, at about 4.30 PM, the dead body of the child (Master Sumit) was found, packed in a gunny bag, in a field near Ambika Public School. Suspicion was entertained that the offence might have been committed by some labourer working in the area belonging to Bihar. Accordingly, the police had instructed all the labourers from Bihar, residing in the area, not to leave the place.
4. On 25.04.2013, a team of forensic experts and a dog squad was also associated in the investigation. On the lead provided by the dog squad, the appellant was suspected to have committed the crime.
5. It was also found that the appellant had tried to abscond from the village during early morning hours of 25.04.2013. He was chased and apprehended by the villagers at a distance of about 8-10 kilometers from the village. The appellant was handed over to the police. He was arrested. Police recorded a disclosure statement of the appellant, Ex.PW3/B on 25.04.2013, in presence of PW-3 Padam Singh and Yogesh Bhargav, whereby he disclosed that he could get recovered the “Pyjama” (lower apparel) of deceased from a place where it had been hidden. On the basis of such disclosure statement, recovery of “Pyjama” was made from the rented room of the appellant.
6. On the same day i.e. on 25.04.2013, a team of forensic experts also examined the spot where the dead body was lying as also the rented room of appellant. Certain incriminating articles were collected and seized from both the places by the police, on the instructions of the forensic experts. The forensic experts had also prepared their spot inspection report Ex.PW10/A. The material collected by police was sent to RFSL, Mandi and SFSL, Junga, for scientific examination and analysis. The reports in this regard were produced in evidence as Ex. PW10/B, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B, Ex.PW19/A, Ex.PW19/B and Ex.PW23/C.
7. On completion of investigation, “challan” was presented. Appellant was charged for offences under Sections 302 , 201, 363 and 102-B of the IPC . Along with appellant, one Manohar Lal was also charged for offences under Sections 202, 201 and 120-B of the IPC . It was alleged against said Manohar Lal that he had acquired prior knowledge of the commission of offences committed by
