Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 109 (UTT)

HARJEET SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2014-03-24

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Appellant was tried for the offence of Section 304 IPC, but the learned Court below has found him guilty for the offence of Section 304A read with Section 201 IPC and sentenced him appropriately for the same. 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, it is amply clear that the appellant Harjeet Singh was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Nainital only on the basis of extra judicial confession which he allegedly made to the PW1 Kishan Singh (maternal uncle of the deceased) and PW2 Laxmi Chandra (owner of the shop). As the prosecution story goes, the deceased Virendra Singh, a young man of around 20 years, was a cleaner on the truck, where the accused appellant was the driver. Some unidentifiable human bones were alleged recovered at the instance of the accused appellant on 7.9.1997. The pant and shirt of the deceased were also lying nearby in an agricultural field. 3. The police had come into motion only on 7.9.1997 when Kishan Singh (PW1) lodged the FIR in the Kotwali Haldwani regarding the extra judicial confession by the appellant to him in front of Laxmi Chandra (the shop owner). PW1 has admitted that he saw the deceased before 5 to 6 days of lodging of the FIR, while in the report Ex. Ka-1, Kishan Singh has disclosed the extra judicial confession from the mouth of the accused that before 10 to 12 days, he had some altercations with the deceased. So, on the following night, he took his vehicle at a place and asked the victim to go beneath the chassis of that truck in order to rectify some defect in the wiring. Meanwhile, by mistake he started the vehicle and Virendra was soon under the wheel of the truck. So, he died. 4. It is certain that the deceased did not die just before the previous night of 7th September, 1997. Had it been so, then the conditions of his bones certainly would not have reached to the state they reached. Learned Trial Judge has based the conviction simply on the basis of extra judicial confession. Undoubtedly, the accused can be convicted only on the basis of extra judicial confession, but that can be so only when the same inspires the confidence. Learned Trial Judge has based the conviction simply on the basis of extra judicial confession. Undoubtedly, the accused can be convicted only on the basis of extra judicial confession, but that can be so only when the same inspires the confidence. In case of Kavita v. State of Tamilnadu, 1999 (38) ACC 669, Hon’ble Apex Court has interpreted the spirit of Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act by saying that extra judicial confession is the weak piece of evidence. The burden always lies on the Court to decide its acceptability on having regard to the credibility of the witnesses. It is the accepted law that extra judicial confession can be the basis of conviction provided it inspires confidence to the Court being voluntary one. The alleged disclosure of the incident from the mouth of appellant Harjeet Singh does not inspire the confidence to the Court for the reason that a culprit, even if taken as normal prudent person, would hardly go an open shop run by Laxmi Chandra to make the confession in front of the real maternal uncle of the deceased. Making the disclosure in such a fashion is difficult to believe. 3 5. No effort has been made by the prosecution to prove that the deceased was a cleaner on that truck. It was incumbent upon the prosecution more so when in the statement under Section 313 CrPC, it has been categorically denied by the accused that he does not know any such victim Virendra Singh and that no person named Virendra Singh was cleaner on that truck. 6. As regards the recovery of the clothes and the bones at the instance of the appellant is concerned, signature of the appellant has not been obtained by the Investigation Officer upon such recovery memos and the accused has categorically denied any such recovery at his instance. 7. So, for the reasons stated above, this appeal has merit. It is hereby allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 21.9.2002 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 21/1999 is hereby set aside. Appellant Harjeet Singh is acquitted from the charge of offence levelled against him. He is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties are discharged. He need not surrender unless wanted in any other case. 8. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the trial court to ensure its compliance. Appellant Harjeet Singh is acquitted from the charge of offence levelled against him. He is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties are discharged. He need not surrender unless wanted in any other case. 8. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the trial court to ensure its compliance. Lower court record be also sent back.