The Bombay High Court set aside the conviction of the accused under section 302 and 376 of I.P.C. A division bench of this Court comprising Hon’ble Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thakar and Ajit Singh held that in the present case, the last seen theory, the arrest of the accused, the recovery the dead body, do not conclusively complete the chain of evidence and do not establish the fact that the accused is guilty of the alleged charges.
Brief Facts:
The prosecution story was that when the informant, along with co-villagers enquired about her niece, he told that he had murdered her yesterday afternoon in the field of Kiran Singh. The accused had taken them to the field of Kiran Singh where she found her niece dead. She was in naked condition, and her clothes were beside her dead body. The prosecution laid the evidence against the accused, and the Court after prosecution evidence, examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the accused submitted that he had been falsely implicated in the present case with the ulterior intention of harassing him. After considering the evidence available on record, the trial court convicted the accused.
This appeal was filed challenging the judgment and order dated 26.05.2000, convicting the Appellant under Sections 302, 376 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, imprisonment of life, and 3 years R.I., respectively.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there are contradictions in the statement of witnesses, and the last seen evidence against the accused does not appear to be very credible. He also submitted that, as per the postmortem report, no spermatozoa were found.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the accused had committed murder after raping a seven years old child, and there was last seen evidence against the accused.
Observations of the Court:
This Court opines that the conviction of Appellant is based only upon circumstantial evidence. Hence, in order to sustain a conviction, it is imperative that the chain of circumstances is complete, cogent, and coherent. After referring to the catena of judgments, it was observed that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused.
Upon thorough application of the above-settled law on the facts of the present case, the Court held that the circumstantial evidence against the present Appellant does not conclusively establish the guilt in committing the murder of the deceased. The last-seen theory, the arrest of the accused, and the recovery of the dead body do not conclusively complete the chain of evidence and do not establish the fact.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 26.5.2000 to the extent that it convicts the accused under sections 302 and 376 of I.P.C.
Case Title: Raju vs State of U.P.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thakar and Ajit Singh
Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1522 of 2000
Advocate for the Appellant: - Apul Misra, P.N.Mishra
Advocate for the Respondents: - A.G.A
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments