Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 343 (UTT)

Virendra Singh Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-05-15

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, RITU BAHRI

body2024
JUDGMENT : RITU BAHRI, C.J. 1. The appellant has come up in appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand in Sessions Trial No. 40 of 2012, whereby the respondent no. 2 has been acquitted for the offence under Sections 302, 376, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that an application was given by applicant (Appellant in the present appeal) to the Patwari Patti Seela-1, Kotdwar stating that his daughter, aged 17 years, was missing since 09.08.2012 whose missing report was filed by the applicant on 12.08.2012 in the Police Chowki-Dugadda, later during the search, the dead body was found on 13.08.2012 in the bushes in a deep ditch of Parry Ki Roli, about 300 meters below the residential house of the applicant within the limits of Village-Jhwanasar. The same day when the girl was missing, accused Sohan Singh resident of Village Jamargaddi/Katal came to Village Jhwanasar and had drunk in the house of Kesavanand and went towards his village Katal at around5 pm. The applicant got the information that his daughter had also got down from the jeep from Kotdwar and was coming on foot to her home on the same day but she did not reach home. The applicant made statement that he is sure that under the influence of alcohol the accused Sohan Singh, saw his daughter coming alone in a secluded place in the forest, she was brutally murdered and her body was hidden in the bushes and requested to file a report. 3. On the basis of the above complaint, a case was registered against the accused Sohan Singh in Patti Seela-1 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and subsequently, the investigation was transferred to Kotdwar Police Station. 4. After Investigation, a charge-sheet was presented against the accused person. The charge sheet was filed against the accused person under Sections 302, 376, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, the case was committed to the Sessions court on 16.11.2012. The Charges were framed against accused Sohan Singh under section 302, 376 and 201 of the I.P.C. The accused denied the charges framed against him and demanded a trial. 5. Therefore, the case was committed to the Sessions court on 16.11.2012. The Charges were framed against accused Sohan Singh under section 302, 376 and 201 of the I.P.C. The accused denied the charges framed against him and demanded a trial. 5. After the charge-sheet, the following witnesses were examined for the purpose of proving the charges on behalf of the prosecution: (i) PW-1 Complainant and Father of the deceased (ii) PW-2 Mother of the deceased (iii) PW-3 Dr. J.C. Dhyani (iv) PW-4 Jyoti Devi (v) PW-5 Savitri Devi (vi) PW 6 Brother of the Complainant (vii) PW-7 Ramchandra Juyal (viii) PW-8 Ajay Gusain (ix) PW-9 Mukesh (x) PW-10 Arvind Keshtwal (xi) PW-11 Sandeep (xii) PW-12 Keshav Dutt (xiii) PW-13 Brother of the Complainant (xiv) PW-14 Const. Pankaj Devli (xv) PW-15 Sub Inspector Manoj Kumar (xvi) PW-16 Rajendra Lal, Revenue Sub Inspector (xvii) PW-17 Head Const. Naushad (xviii) PW-18 Jagpal Singh (xix) PW-19 Dinesh Chandra Juyal (xx) PW-20 Indermohan Juyal 6. After the prosecution concluded its evidence, the statement of accused Sohan Singh was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the accused denied the incident and said that he is innocent, the witness had given false testimony. The accused said that his mobile phone had fallen but he is not aware where it fell and refused to present evidence in his defence. 7. The Trial Court, after going through the entire evidence led by the prosecution, acquitted the accused. No offence under Section 302, 376, 201 IPC was made out against the accused-Sohan Singh, as the prosecution was failed to prove the charges from the evidence available on the file. 8. The trial court further observed that the statements given by PW-8 under section 164 CrPC were given freely and without any pressure. There is no evidence available on the file even to prove the circumstances on which the prosecution relies to prove the case on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution also fails to prove the Extra-judicial confession of the accused and has also failed to prove the presence of the accused at the spot of the incident. There is also no evidence presented by the prosecution to prove that the deceased was raped. In such a situation, the prosecution has also not been able to prove the purpose for which the accused murdered the deceased. 9. There is also no evidence presented by the prosecution to prove that the deceased was raped. In such a situation, the prosecution has also not been able to prove the purpose for which the accused murdered the deceased. 9. The case at hand predominantly relies on circumstantial evidence for the prosecution's argument. The legal principles concerning conviction based on such evidence were extensively elucidated in the landmark judgment of this Court in the Case of Raja Naykar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC Online SC 67, wherein the apex court held that: “14. Undoubtedly, the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. The law with regard to conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence has very well been crystalized in the judgment of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein this Court held thus: 152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129. This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1969) 3 SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 55 and Ramgopal vs. State of Maharashtra, (1972) 4 SCC 625 : AIR 1972 SC 656 . It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant Case (1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129: “It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Cri LJ 1783 where the observations were made : [SCC Para 19, p. 807 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047] “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. 15. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. 15. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The Court holds that it is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has further been held that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been held that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. 16. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” 10. It is clear from the above-mentioned judgment that an accused cannot be convict solely on the basis of the statements made by the prosecution witnesses, it must be followed by any piece of evidence that satisfy the statements. Even the punishment has been awarded by presuming the facts under section 114 (a), Evidence act the same must be drawn considering other evidence on record and without corroboration from other cogent evidence, it must not be drawn in isolation. Therefore, the trial court rightly acquitted the accused Sohan Singh as the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt and there is no material available on record to prove the guilt of the accused. 11. Therefore, the trial court rightly acquitted the accused Sohan Singh as the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt and there is no material available on record to prove the guilt of the accused. 11. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present Criminal Appeal, and the same is, hereby, dismissed. 12. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.