Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.
STATE OF U.P. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SUNIL – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1432-1434 OF 2011
WITH
REKHA SENGAR – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1423-1424 OF 2011
Decided On : 02-05-2017
(1962) 3 SCR 10; (2010) 7 SCC 263 – Relied upon
AIR 1968 SC 832 : (1968) 2 SCR 641 – Referred
(b) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence provided chain of the circumstances is complete beyond all reasonable doubt. (Para 13)
(2010) 2 SCC 748 – Relied upon
(c) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Prosecution not able to connect respondent with the incident – Any circumstantial evidence becomes inconsequential. (Para 14)
(2010) 2 SCC 748 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Trial court convicted the accused-respondent u/s 302 & 429 r/w section 34 and awarded him capital sentence.
The High Court acquitted the accused-respondent and rejected the Capital Sentence Reference for confirmation of the death sentence.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.
Present appeals have been directed against the judgment dated 23rd May, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.2968 of 2007 with Criminal (Jail) Appeal No.2757 of 2007 and Capital Reference No.12 of 2007, whereby judgment and order dated 04.04.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in Sessions Trial No.424 of 2000 was set aside and the accused-respondent was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Capital Sentence Reference for confirmation of the death sentence was consequently rejected.
1. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are as follows: One Kumari Rekha Sengar (PW-2), who is the complainant in the present case, got a phone call from her mother Smt. Shashi Prabha (now deceased) at about 11.00 to 11.30 pm on 02.09.2000 narrating that complainant’s brother-in-law (Jeeja), namely, Suresh Pal Singh @ Guddu along with his friend had come to their house in Etawah, Uttar Pradesh, demanding Rs.50,000/-from her father and on refusal to meet the demand, they became very angry. The complainant herself had a talk with her brother-in-law and tried to pacify him but she failed as he cut the telephone call. Later when the complainant failed to have further communication on telephone, she left for her parents’ house from Delhi. On reaching her parents’ house she saw dead bodies of her father, mother, two sisters and their pet dog. Law was set into motion after an FIR was registered by the complainant on the basis of written report. The said Suresh Pal Singh was arrested on 04.09.2000 and on the basis of the confessional statement made by the accused, a knife, blood-stained clothes and other articles were recovered by the Investigating Officer (PW-7) in the presence of PW-4 and recovery memo Ext. Ka-8 was made. Involvement of respondent herein was also unearthed on the basis of the said confessional statement. After conclusion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted before the learned Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Etawa, U.P. Accused Suresh Pal Singh died during the trial and therefore criminal proceedings against him stood abated. The Trial Court convicting the accused Sunil under Sections 302 & 429 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded death sentence to him and imposed a fine of Rs.500/-for offence under Section 429 of IPC.
2. Being aggrieved, the accused-respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No.2968 of 2007 and Criminal (Jail) Appeal No.2757 of 2007 before the High Court. Capital Sentence Reference No.12/2007 was made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Etawa. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2008 set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and acquitted the accused-respondent. Consequently, Capital Sentence Reference No.12 of 2007 was rejected by the High Court. Hence, the State of U.P. and the complainant are before us by filing Criminal Appeal Nos.1432-1434 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal Nos.1423-1424 of 2011, respectively.
3. We have noticed that the High Court had allowed the criminal appeal of accused-respondent on the basis of failure on the part of the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The High Court in its finding made four important observations:
(i) Evidence of PW-2 cannot be used against respondent herein for the reason of improvement in statement;
(ii) The testimony of PW-1 showing his conduct as against human nature is not worthy of credence for the reason that he did not actually see the accused persons; (iii) Evidence of recovery of weapon and other articles may be relevant, but could not be relevant against accused-respondent herein; and
(iv) Adverse inference cannot be drawn by the Court on refusal to give specimen palm impression in spite of the order of the Court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
