Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 439 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Chitrasen Raj @ Anil

2020-02-07

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I, GAUTAM CHOWDHARY

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Nafees Ahmad, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Umesh Vats, learned counsel for the accused-respondent and perused the impugned judgement of acquittal and record of the appeal. 2. By way of instant Government Appeal, leave to appeal has been sought by the Government against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 13.07.1989, passed by the then Special Judge/Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Deoria in Sessions Trial No. 182 of 1986 (State vs. Chitrasen Rai alias Anil), under Sections -364, 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station -Ramkola, District -Deoria, whereby the accused-respondent Chitrasen Rai @ Anil has been acquitted of the charges under the aforesaid sections of I.P.C. 3. Sri Nafees Ahmad, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently claimed that this case is one in which the deceased is a child namely, Pintu and he was taken away by one Anil, in his company. Thereafter, on information being given by one Chandrika that the dead body of a boy was lying in the Bari of Patherdeva Siwan, his dead body was recovered. The distance of this place (where the dead body of Pintu was recovered) from the village of the deceased was stated to be one and half miles. Five persons went to the aforesaid spot in search of the body and found the same to be that of Pintu. On a written report, which was scribed by one Ram Kishore, the contents were described, whereafter, Madan, informant of this case, appended his thumb impression on it. Thereafter, it was lodged at the police station, which is Ex. Ka.1 as per the certified copy of the judgment. The police party, after lodging of the F.I.R., arrived on the spot, completed all the necessary formalities, prepared inquest report and completed necessary formalities for sending the cadaver of the deceased for post mortem examination. 4. P.W.7 Dr. Radhey Shyam Yadav conducted the post mortem examination on the cadaver of the deceased on 19.05.1986 at Mortuary, Deoria. He noted the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body : 1. Lacerated wound 16.00 cm. x 4.00 cm. x 5.00 cm. deep. All the soft issues blood vessels and trachea cut down and lacerated badly. Maggots crawl in the interior of wound. 5. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was said to be shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. 6. Lacerated wound 16.00 cm. x 4.00 cm. x 5.00 cm. deep. All the soft issues blood vessels and trachea cut down and lacerated badly. Maggots crawl in the interior of wound. 5. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was said to be shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. 6. This post mortem examination report has been proved as Ex.Ka.3. 7. The investigation of the case was conducted by P.W. 8 Triveni Rai, who was, on the date of the lodging of the F.I.R., posted as S.I. of Police Station -Ramkola in the month of May, 1986. He has also proved the relevant entry made in the Check F.I.R. on the basis of the contents of the written report Ex.Ka.1. The Check F.I.R. has been proved as Ex.Ka. 4. Consequently, the relevant entries regarding the same were entered in the G.D. concerned as Ex.Ka.5 and case was registered against the accused at Police Station -Ramkola, District -Deoria at 22.30 Hrs. on 17.05.1989. 8. The Investigating Officer, during his investigation, recorded the statement of various prosecution witnesses and proved several papers. In the meanwhile, the investigation was taken over by P.W.9, Sharda Nand Pandey. He proceeded with the investigation from that stage and after completing all necessary formalities, concluded the investigation and filed the charge-sheet, which is Ex.Ka.13. 9. As a sequel to it, the trial commenced, wherein the primary story regarding the occurrence and the incident was described and narrated by P.W.10 Vishnu Pratap Singh before the court. He has stated that so far his knowledge about fact of murder is concerned, Pintu was murdered and he has stated that Anil Kumar met him after 7-8 days of the murder of Pintu at Padrauna and told him that he committed murder of the son of Munni. He has also stated that Anil Kumar had requested and prayed for his protection after noticing that charge under Sections -364, 201 I.P.C. were earlier framed. 10. In support of the prosecution case, prosecution examined as many as ten prosecution witnesses, out of whom, P.W.1 Madan, P.W.2. Deba, P.W.3 Chandrika, P.W.4 Saifun, P.W.5 Kauri and P.W.10 Vishnu Pratap Singh were examined as witnesses of fact. Further prosecution got examined P.W.6 Constable Mangal Rai, P.W.7 Dr. Radhey Shyam Yadav, P.W.8 Triveni Rai Investigating Officer and the subsequent Investigating Officer P.W.9 Sharda Nand Pandey as formal witnesses. 11. Deba, P.W.3 Chandrika, P.W.4 Saifun, P.W.5 Kauri and P.W.10 Vishnu Pratap Singh were examined as witnesses of fact. Further prosecution got examined P.W.6 Constable Mangal Rai, P.W.7 Dr. Radhey Shyam Yadav, P.W.8 Triveni Rai Investigating Officer and the subsequent Investigating Officer P.W.9 Sharda Nand Pandey as formal witnesses. 11. Except as above, no other testimony was adduced, therefore, evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of the accused was recorded under Section -313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied his involvement in the incident and claimed that his implication in this case is false. He is resident of Bihar and he is a doctor by profession. Madan wanted his house to be vacated by him but the accused was not vacating his house, due to this reason, he has been falsely involved in this case. 12. The defense did not lead any evidence, whatsover. 13. The trial court after appraisal of the entirety of the case, recorded aforesaid finding of acquittal, primarily basing its acquittal on ground that the motive, which was required to be proved in such a case based on circumstantial evidence, was woefully missing. Apart from that, the chain of circumstances are not consistently established as are required for recording finding of conviction of an accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence. Thus, the chain of circumstances is not complete so as to point out that the accused Anil and Anil alone is the author and originator of the entire crime to the exclusion of all others. Resultantly, this appeal. 14. Sri Umesh Vats, learned counsel for the accused- respondent has vehemently claimed that it is a case based on circumstantial evidence and it is established criminal jurisprudence that in such cases, all the links in the chains of circumstances are required to be completely established and proved and it should point out to only one hypothesis, leaving aside the innocence of the accused that he alone is the guilty person. In this, case, all the vital links in the chain of circumstances are blatantly incoherent, missing and cannot be said to be complete in itself and he has claimed that the trial court, under such circumstances, was wholly justified in recording finding of acquittal, which is based on material on record. 15. We have also perused the relevant findings regarding the acquittal. 15. We have also perused the relevant findings regarding the acquittal. Insofar as the point of motive is concerned, we may observe that in such cases like the present one, where the matter relates to circumstantial evidence, the motive becomes central theme of the case and the prosecution is required to specifically prove and establish the factum of motive and in the absence of proof of motive, the conviction is hard to be recorded because of various possibilities likely to emanate, based on reasoning. Insofar as the motive for false implication is concerned, admittedly, in this case, the factum of tenancy between the accused and the informant Madan is admitted and cannot be doubted. That way, merely a piece of evidence put forth by one of the prosecution witnesses in the shape of extrajudicial confession that Anil came to him at Padrauna and confessed to have murdered Pintu, the son of Munni does not inspire confidence and becomes only an isolated piece of testimony, which (testimony), in the absence of other attendant and corroborating facts and circumstances of this case, cannot give rise to the inevitable hypothesis that accused Anil and Anil alone is the author of the entire crime. 16. In view of above, we find that various links in the chain of circumstances of this case have not been properly established and the trial court was justified in holding that the case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 17. We, upon careful perusal of the same, hereby affirm the finding of acquittal recorded in judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.07.1989, passed by the then Special Judge/Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Deoria in Sessions Trial No. 182 of 1986 (State vs. Chitrasen Rai alias Anil), under Sections -364, 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station - Ramkola, District - Deoria. 18. Consequently, we do not find any force in this application for leave to appeal. The same is refused and deserves to be dismissed. Appeal is dismissed. Ordered accordingly.