Advocates:
RAJENDER PD. SAXENAGUNNAM VENKATESWARA RAO

Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.

1340 of 2007

Ramesh Harijan

…..Appellant

Versus

State of U.P.

.... Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

l. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment

and order dated 23.3.2007 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in

Government Appeal No. 1246 of 1999 by which the High Court has

reversed the judgment of Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Basti in Sessions Trial No. 312 of 1996 dated 2.2.1999 acquitting the

appellant. Thus, the High Court has convicted the appellant for the

offence punishable under Sections 302 and 376 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as `IPC’) and awarded him the life

imprisonment for both the offences. However, both the sentences

have been directed to run concurrently.

Page 2

JUDGMENT

2.

Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:

A.

One Smt. Batasi Devi (PW.2) lodged an FIR on 2.2.1996 in

Haraiya Police Station alleging that her daughter Renu, aged 5-6

years, was found dead on her cot in Muradipur, the village of her

maternal grandmother on 30.1.1996 at about 9.00 p.m. Initially, she

had been told that her daughter died of paralysis and she was buried

at the bank of Manorama river. Later on she got information from

Shitla Prasad Verma (PW.8), Jata Shankar Singh (PW.7) and other

persons of the same village that her daughter had been raped and

killed by Ramesh, appellant. She also made a request that the dead

body of the child be exhumed and sent for post-mortem.

B. On the order of the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the

dead body of Renu was dug out from the grave and sent for post-

mortem on 3.2.1996. The autopsy was conducted by Dr. Ajay

Kumar Verma and Dr. S.S. Dwedi of District Hospital. In their

opinion, death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-

mortem vaginal injuries.

C. On the basis of the post-mortem report, Case Crime No. 22 of

1996 was registered against the appellant under Sections 302 and

376 IPC. After having the investigation, the police filed the

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

chargesheet against the appellant. During the trial prosecution

examined 14 witnesses to prove its case including Kunwar Dhruv

Narain Singh (PW.1), the scribe of the FIR, Batasi Devi (PW.2),

mother of the deceased Renu, Jata Shankar Singh (PW.7), Shitla

Prasad Verma (PW.8) and after conclusion of the trial and

considering the evidence on record, the trial court vide its judgment

and order dated 2.2.1999 acquitted the appellant of both the

aforesaid charges.

D.

Being aggrieved, the State preferred Criminal Appeal No.

1246 of 1999 which has been allowed by the High Court vide

judgment and order dated 23.3.2007 and the appellant has been

convicted and awarded the sentence of life imprisonment on both

counts.

Hence, this appeal.

3.

Shri Rajender Parsad Saxena, learned counsel appearing for

the appellant, has submitted that High Court has committed an error

by reversing the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal by the trial

court. There is no iota of evidence against the appellant on the basis

of which the conviction can be sustained. The evidence relied upon

by the High Court particularly that of Kunwar Dhruv Narain Singh

(PW.1), Jata Shankar Singh (PW.7) and Shitla Prasad Verma (PW.8)

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

cannot stand judicial scrutiny as these witnesses had been motivated;

improvement in the depositions of Jata Shankar Singh (PW.7) and

Shitla Prasad Verma (PW.8) had been to the extent that it is liable to

be discarded as a whole. The other witnesses have turned hostile,

therefore, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant was

connected with the crime by any means. There is no evidence on

record on the basis of which it can be est