Allowed

Vinmati v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC31 May 2018CRLA/2437/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed three criminal appeals against life imprisonment convictions for murder arising from a case tried circumstantially. The Court found no direct evidence placing the accused at the scene and deemed the prosecution's claim of conspiracy an afterthought unsupported by corroboration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; Appellants acquitted of all charges. Appellant Vinmati released on complying with Section 437A Cr.P.C.

Vinmati Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2437 of 2013

¶4

Appellant :- Vinmati Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- L.P. Singh,Prem Shanker,Shishir Tandan Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,L.B. Yadav

¶5

Connected with

¶6

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1704 of 2013

¶7

Appellant :- Ram Briksh Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Shishir Tandon,G.S. Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,L.B. Yadav

¶8

Connected with

¶9

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No . - 1753 of 2013

¶10

Appellant :- Pati Ram Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Manmohan Singh,Narendra Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,L.B. Yadav

¶11

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶12

Heard Sri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shishir Tandon, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2437 of 2013 and 1704 of 2013, Sri Narendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1753 of 2013, Sri L.B. Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶13

¶14

These three criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants Vinmati, Ram Briksh Maurya and Pati Ram Singh against the judgement and order dated 12.04.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Cadre, Ballia in Session Trial No. 272 of 2007, arising out of Case Crime No. 37 of 2007 “State of U.P. Vs. Vinmati Devi and others”, by which the appellants Vinmati Devi and Pati Ram Singh have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life together with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and in case of default in payment of fine, additional imprisonment of two years each u/s 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. while appellant Ram Briksh Maurya has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life together with fine of Rs. 1,50,000/and in case of default in payment of fine, additional imprisonment of two years u/s 302 r/w 120-B I.P.C.

¶15

Briefly stated the facts of this case are that on 11.08.2006, P.W.1 Radheyshyam Maurya, filed an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia inter alia alleging therein that he is son of Rambrat Maurya who was a railway employee, posted as running room janitor in Ballia and was residing in Dardarmuni Railway Colony, quarter no. L-12C; that one Vinmati Devi, resident of Baudi, P.S.- Guthni, District- Siwan (Bihar), was living with his father as his kept; that his real mother Anarjiya Devi had died on 10.04.1977; that on 11.06.2006, he received an information on telephone while he was in Chandigarh that his father Rambrat Maurya has died and on receiving the aforesaid information, he and his brother Ravindra Kumar Maurya, who was privately employed in Delhi, came to Ballia and saw the dead body of their father; that the local police took possession of his father's dead body and the postmortem on his dead body was conducted on 14.06.2006 which indicated that his father had died as a result of the antemortem injuries received by him on his head; that on making enquiry from the people residing in close vicinity of his father's house, he learnt that his father did not approve of one Ram Briksh Maurya, frequently visiting his house to meet Vinmati Devi and he was certain that the aforesaid Vinmati Devi and Ram Briksh Maurya had committed the murder of his father; that he visited P.S.-

¶16

¶17

Kotwali, District- Ballia frequently for lodging the F.I.R. of the incident but his report was not registered as a result of which he informed S.P.Ballia about the incident on 03.08.2006 by means of an application sent to him through R.P.A.D. with a prayer to direct the concerned police station to register his F.I.R.; that the informant was in government service and as such he was in a position to collect incriminating evidence against the accused and hence, an order be passed directing the concerned police station to register a criminal case against the accused under appropriate sections of I.P.C. and investigate the same; that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia passed an order on 23.08.2006 for registering the application moved by the informant u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as complaint; that the order dated 23.08.2006 was challenged by the informant by filing a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Ballia which was allowed by him by order dated 04.11.2016 and the matter was remitted back by the learned Sessions Judge, Ballia to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia for passing a fresh order in the matter in accordance with law pursuant to which he passed an order on 07.12.2016 directing S.H.O.- Kotwali, District- Ballia to register the F.I.R. and inform the Court; that in compliance of the aforesaid order, Case Crime No. 37 of 2007 u/s 302 I.P.C. was registered against the appellants Vinmati Devi and Ram Briksh Maurya at P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ballia on 13.02.2007 at about 6.20 p.m.

¶18

Record shows that before the postmortem on the cadaver of Rambrat Maurya was performed, inquest proceedings were conducted on 14.06.2006 which commenced at 10.05 a.m. and concluded at 11.50 a.m. on the same day. The inquest witnesses were unanimously of the opinion that the deceased became suddenly ill on 11.06.2006 at about 1.15 a.m. and he died at about 2 a.m. The inquest witnesses further opined that the deceased had been administered poison.

¶19

The investigation of the case after the registration of the F.I.R. was entrusted to P.W.6 R.N. Pandey on 13.02.2007 who after obtaining a copy of the check F.I.R., postmortem report and panchayatnama recorded the statements of the witnesses and after

¶20

¶21

inspecting the place of incident, prepared its site plan (Ext.Ka.4) at the behest of the informant. During the investigation, in addition to the accused named in the F.I.R., the complicity of one Pati Ram Singh also came into light. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet (Ext.Ka.6) against all the three appellants u/s 302, 120-B I.P.C. before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia.

¶22

Since the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet were triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia committed the case for trial of the accused to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ballia where it was registered as S.T. No. 272 of 2007, State of U.P. Vs. Vinmati Devi and others and made over for trial from there to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Cadre, Ballia, who on the basis of material collected during investigation and after hearing the prosecution as well as the accused on the point of charge, framed charge u/s 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. against the appellants, Vinmati and Pati Ram Singh and u/s 302 r/w 120-B I.P.C. against the appellant Ram Briksh Maurya who abjured the charge and claimed trial.

¶23

The prosecution in order to bring home the charge framed against the accused-appellants examined as many as eight witnesses of whom P.W.1 informant Radheyshyam Maurya, P.W.3 Dharamraj @ Bablu, P.W.4 Ravindra Kumar Maurya and P.W.5 Harendra Maurya were examined as witnesses of fact while P.W.2 Dr. Narendra Kumar who had conducted the autopsy on the body of deceased Rambrat Maurya, prepared and proved his postmortem report as (Ext.Ka.3), P.W.6 S.I. R.N. Pandey, who had investigated the case and filed charge-sheet against the accused-appellants, P.W.7 Constable 243 Prem Chand Bharti who proved the inquest report of the deceased (Ext.Ka.1) and other related documents namely police form no. 13, letters addressed to R.I. and C.M.O., photo lash and specimen seal as (Ext.Ka.7 to Ka.13) and P.W.8 Head Constable Prahlad who had prepared and proved the check F.I.R. (Ext.Ka.12) and carbon copy of corresponding G.D. Entry which was in his hand writing, were produced as formal witnesses.

¶24

¶25

The accused-appellants in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and alleged false implication. The accused-appellants however did not examine any defence witness.

¶26

Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Cadre, Ballia after considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, convicted the appellants, Vinmati Devi, Pati Ram Singh and Ram Briksh Maurya and awarded aforesaid sentences to them.

¶27

Hence, this appeal.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the instant case admittedly neither anyone had seen the accused-appellants committing the murder of deceased nor there is any evidence on record even remotely indicating that the appellants were seen going in or coming out of the house of the deceased on the date of the incident, it is apparent that the conviction of the appellants in the present case is based only upon surmises and conjectures rather than on any tangible evidence. He next submitted that the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed by P.W.1 informant Radheyshyam Maurya only after the appellant Vinmati Devi had filed an objection in the claim petition filed by P.W.4 Ravindra Kumar Maurya before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking compassionate appointment in place of his late father Rambrat Maurya who had died in harness, setting up her own claim on the ground of her being the widow of the deceased. The entire prosecution story as narrated in the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by P.W.1 informant Radheyshyam Maurya before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia rests wholly upon suspicion rather than on any reliable evidence, falsely implicating the appellants with the sole malafide intention of depriving appellant Vinmati Devi of her right to seek compassionate appointment. He also submitted that despite the inquest on the dead body of Rambrat Maurya having been conducted on 14.06.2006 in the presence of P.W.1 informant Radheyshyam Maurya and P.W.4 Ravindra Kumar Maurya, both sons

¶29

¶30

of the deceased and despite it emerging from the postmortem report of the deceased dated 14.06.2006 that the deceased had died as a result of antemortem head injuries, the informant Radheyshyam Maurya did not lodge any report against the appellants within a reasonable time and it was only after the appellant Vinmati Devi had objected to the claim of P.W.4 Ravindra Kumar Maurya seeking compassionate appointment after the death of his father, that P.W.1 informant Radheyshyam Maurya filed the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 11.08.2006 almost two months after the incident without any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in this regard, falsely implicating the appellants. He next submitted that although there is no evidence of any criminal conspiracy hatched by the appellants, the learned trial Judge erred in law in convicting the appellant Ram Briksh Maurya u/s 302 r/w 120-B I.P.C. He lastly submitted that neither the recorded conviction of the appellants nor the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to them can be sustained and are liable to be set-aside.

¶31

Per contra Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State submitted that it is proved from the circumstantial evidence on record that the appellants had committed the murder of Rambrat Maurya in his house in the night of 13/14.06.2006. The prosecution case stands fully proved from the statements of P.W.1 informant Radheyshyam Maurya, P.W.3 Dharamraj @ Bablu, P.W.4 Ravindra Kumar Maurya and P.W.5 Harendra Maurya whose evidence is throughout consistent, clinching and unerringly pointing at the guilt of the appellants. The medical evidence on record fully corroborates the prosecution story as spelt out in the F.I.R. and later testified by the prosecution witnesses. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. stands satisfactorily explained and even otherwise the prosecution case is not liable to be thrown out on that count alone. The recorded conviction of the appellants is based upon cogent evidence and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to them is supported by relevant considerations. The impugned judgement and order do not suffer from any illegality or legal infirmity requiring any interference by this Court.

¶32

¶33

The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

We have very carefully considered the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire lower court record.

¶35

The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts or not ?

¶36

The medical evidence on record comprises of the postmortem report of the deceased (Ext.Ka.3) and the statement of P.W.2 Dr. Narendra Kumar who had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Rambrat Maurya, prepared and proved his postmortem report as (Ext.Ka.3). Having gone through the postmortem report and the testimony of P.W.2 Dr. Narendra Kumar, we find that the death of Rambrat Maurya was not as a result of his being poisoned as opined by the inquest witnesses or on account of his falling on the ground while rising from the cot, on which he was sleeping, to vomit. He had died as a result of antemortem head injuries. His postmortem report indicates two antemortem injuries which are as follows :-

¶37

1) Contusion 6 cm x 4 cm on just above the left ear

¶38

2) Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm on just above the right ear

¶39

Old ulcer on right foot of size 6 cm x 4 cm was also noted by the doctor who had conducted the postmortem. The postmortem report of the deceased also indicated fracture in his skull. Thus, the finding recorded by the trial court that the death of deceased was homicidal is correct.

¶40

The question then arises whether the appellants, Vinmati Devi and Pati Ram Singh are guilty of offence u/s 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. and appellant Ram Briksh Maurya of offence u/s 302 r/w 120-B I.P.C. or not ? The fact that the death of Rambrat Maurya was as a result of culpable homicide, is beyond any doubt but the question is that whether the appellants could be said to be the authors of the crime. The entire case of the prosecution rests purely on circumstantial

¶41

¶42

evidence.

¶43

P.W.1 informant Radheyshyam Maurya, in his examination-inchief stated that his father was employed in the Railways on the post of Running Room Janitor and at the time of the incident, he was posted in Ballia running room and was residing in quarter no. L-12C, Dardarmuni Railway Colony. His mother whose name was Anarjiya Devi, had died on 10.04.1977. Before his transfer to Ballia, his father was posted at Krihidapur Railway Station where the appellant Ram Briksh Maurya was posted as Station Master. Appellant Vinmati Devi, the kept of his father, was a relative of Ram Briksh Maurya. Ram Briksh Maurya who used to visit his father's quarter on the pretext of meeting Vinmati Devi. On the date of the incident, the informant was employed in Indian Army and was posted at Chandigarh. The occurrence took place on 11.06.2006, information whereof was given to him by his wife on telephone. After receiving the aforesaid information, he made an application for grant of leave and informed his brother P.W.4 Ravindra Kumar Maurya, who at the time of the incident, was employed privately in Delhi. Then, he left for Ballia on 11.06.2006 and reached there on 12.06.2006 at about 11 p.m. and went to his father's quarter located in Dardarmuni Railway Colony and on reaching there, he found his brother P.W.4 Ravindra Kumar Maurya, had already arrived and saw the dead body of his father lying on an ice slab. He was certain that his father had been murdered and hence, he requested the G.R.P. to inform the P.S.- Kotwali and then he gave information of the incident at P.S.- Kotwali but no action was taken. On his making enquiry from the people residing in close vicinity of the quarter of his father, he discovered that appellant Ram Briksh Maurya used to visit his father's quarter to meet appellant Vinmati Devi which was not appreciated by his father. When no action was taken by the S.P., Ballia on the application filed before S.P., Ballia by him, he filed an application before the District Magistrate, Ballia on whose order, inquest on the dead body of his father was conducted by a subinspector who after nominating the inquest witnesses, held the inquest, prepared the inquest report, signed the same and then

¶44

¶45

obtained the signatures of the other witnesses thereon. He proved the copy of the inquest report as (Ext.Ka.1). On 03.08.2006, he sent an application to S.P., Ballia which was typed on his dictation by registered post. When no action was taken, he moved an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. after a week on 11.06.2006 (Ext.Ka.2). Pursuant to the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia on the aforesaid application (Ext.Ka.2), the police of P.S.- Kotwali registered the case and the Investigating Officer after recording his statement, went with him to the place of incident.

¶46

P.W.3 Dharamraj @ Bablu, grandson of the deceased Rambrat Maurya deposed before the trial court that he had studied from class 2 to class 9 in Purvottar Railway Junior High School, Ballia while living with his grandfather in quarter no. L-12C in Dardarmuni Railway Colony, Ballia. Appellant Vinmati Devi used to live with his grandfather as his kept and cooked food. She ill-treated him and frequently beat him. In the absence of his grandfather from the quarter, appellant Ram Briksh Maurya, resident of village- Uskar, P.S.- Bhimpura, used to come to meet appellant Vinmati Devi which his grandfather did not approve of and used to rebuke Vinmati Devi but appellant Vinmati Devi continued to meet appellant Ram Briksh Maurya in the absence of his grandfather. Both appellants, Vinmati Devi and Ram Briksh Maurya used to lock themselves in a room. In February, 2006, he went to his uncle's house in Delhi from where he returned to Ballia after two months in April. When he came to the quarter of his grandfather at about 11 a.m., he saw appellants, Vinmati Devi and Ram Briksh Maurya sitting on a cot in the courtyard and appellant Ram Briksh Maurya telling Vinmati Devi that the old man was an obstacle in their way and he should be eliminated so that she may get employment in his place and also his pension so that they may live happily and comfortably thereafter. When he opened the door and stepped inside, appellant Vinmati Devi on seeing him, became very angry with him. Appellant Vinmati Devi had, without the permission of his grandfather, kept appellant Pati Ram Singh as a tenant in a portion of the house of his grandfather, who was a widower having three sons, one daughter-

¶47

¶48

in-law and one grandson. Fed up with the ill-treatment of Vinmati Devi, he returned to his uncle's place in Delhi. About 10 to 11 months before the date on which his statement was recorded, he had received information from his uncle that his grandfather had been murdered so he went to Ballia and on reaching his quarter, he found the dead body of his grandfather lying under a guava tree with black and blue marks of injuries. He suspected that his father had been murdered by the appellants, Vinmati Devi and Ram Briksh Maurya.

¶49

P.W.4 Ravindra Kumar Maurya, son of deceased Rambrat Maurya stated that his father was a railway employee posted at Ballia station. At the time when his father was murdered, he was doing a private job in Delhi. His elder brother P.W.1 informant Radheyshyam Maurya had informed him on phone about his father's murder on which he had reached Ballia Railway Station by train. When he reached his father's quarter no. L-12C in railway colony in Ballia, he saw his dead body lying in the courtyard on an ice slab covered with a bed-sheet. At that time, his brother Radheyshyam had not arrived. He examined the dead body of his father after removing the bed-sheet. He noticed blood oozing out from both his ears. His body was swollen. His two uncles, Patiram and Baburam were present in the quarter. Appellants, Ram Briksh Maurya and Vinmati Devi, mother of Vinmati Devi and her niece were also present there. Appellant Ram Briksh Maurya was insisting that the dead body of his father should be taken for cremation to which he had objected and said that till his elder brother Radheyshyam comes, the last rites will not be performed. His brother reached the same day at about 11 p.m. and announced that the body shall not be cremated and first information shall be given to the police and cremation will take place only after the postmortem. In the morning, he and his elder brother Radheyshyam went to the P.S.Kotwali but no one paid any heed to their requests and after running from pillar to post, they eventually succeeded in getting the postmortem on the dead body of their father conducted on the order of District Magistrate, Ballia. The conduct of postmortem was preceded by holding of inquest on the dead body of deceased in his presence.

¶50

¶51

He had signed the inquest report. Later, appellant Vinmati begged his elder brother Radheyshyam to save her. When the dead body of his father was being dispatched for conducting postmortem, appellant Ram Briksh Maurya had run away and had not returned thereafter. Appellant Vinmati Devi was living with his father as his kept. She had lived with her father before coming to Ballia at Krihidapur for about ten years where appellant Ram Briksh Maurya was posted as Assistant Station Master. His father was annoyed with appellant Vinmati Devi because she had not stopped meeting appellant Ram Briksh Maurya in his house despite his objection. His mother Anarjiya Devi had died in the year 1977. After the death of his mother, his father had kept Vinmati Devi as his concubine in his house. Appellant Vinmati Devi had let out a room of his father's house on rent against his wishes to one Pati Ram Singh and used to realize rent from him.

¶52

P.W.5 Harendra Maurya, resident of Mau, brother-in-law ( sadhu bhai) of P.W.1 informant Radheyshyam Maurya, in his evidence recorded before the trial court stated that on receiving the news about the death of Rambrat Maurya, he reached his government quarter with his father-in-law Chandrabhan Maurya. On reaching there, he found the dead body of Rambrat Maurya lying in the courtyard of his house covered with a bed-sheet. When he enquired from appellant Vinmati Devi, who lived with the deceased in his quarter as his kept about the cause of the death of the deceased, she told him that when he got up after taking his food, he started coughing and foam came out from his mouth and thereafter, he died. She then asked him to take the dead body for cremation on which he said that the cremation will take place only after the arrival of P.W.1 informant Radheyshyam. When P.W.1 informant Radheyshyam reached the quarter of the deceased's and saw the dead body of his father, he went to the police station and when he returned, appellant Vinmati Devi caught hold of the feet of Radheyshyam and started weeping and implored him to save her. He further deposed that he used to visit the quarter of deceased Rambrat Maurya frequently where he had seen appellant Ram Briksh Maurya also. He knew from before that appellant Vinmati Devi was a

¶53

¶54

characterless lady who had relations with Ram Briksh Maurya. The inquest report (Ext.Ka.1) on the dead body of Rambrat Maurya was prepared by the Investigating Officer in his presence on which he had put his signature.

¶55

Thus, although all the prosecution witnesses have deposed that appellant Vinmati Devi was living in the house of the deceased as his kept and appellant Ram Briksh Maurya used to visit the house of the deceased to meet appellant Vinmati Devi frequently to which the deceased always objected and as a result of which the appellants Vinmati Devi and Pati Ram Singh, who was residing as a tenant in a portion of the house of the deceased, committed the murder of the deceased by hatching a conspiracy with appellant Ram Briksh Maurya but after having very carefully scanned the statements of P.W.1 informant Radheyshyam Maurya, P.W.3 Dharamraj @ Bablu, P.W.4 Ravindra Kumar Maurya and P.W.5 Harendra Maurya, we find that none of the aforesaid witnesses have deposed that they had seen the appellants at or around the residence of the deceased at the relevant point of time. Since the appellant Vinmati Devi was, as per the prosecution case itself, kept of the deceased although she claimed herself to be his wife and appellant Ram Briksh Maurya used to visit the house of the deceased to meet appellant Vinmati Devi, as such no presumption can be drawn against the appellants, Vinmati Devi and Ram Briksh Maurya about their being present at the place and at the time of the incident. The evidence of P.W.4 Ravindra Kumar Maurya that appellant Vinmati Devi had fallen on the feet of P.W.1 informant Radheyshyam Maurya and implored him to save her and appellant Ram Briksh Maurya had left the deceased's house after his dead body was sent for postmortem and did not return thereafter, is also in our opinion wholly irrelevant to connect the appellant Ram Briksh Maurya with the crime. Moreover, there are no other supporting circumstances such as discovery of any incriminating material either from the possession of or on the pointing out of the appellants. All the witnesses of fact have implicated the appellants as accused in this case on the basis of suspicion alone.

¶56

¶57

The statements of P.W.1 informant Radheyshyam Maurya, P.W.3 Dharamraj @ Bablu, P.W.4 Ravindra Kumar Maurya and P.W.5 Harendra Maurya, further do not substantiate the charge of criminal conspiracy framed against the appellant Ram Briksh Maurya. The only statement of any worth which comes closest to constitute an ingredient of criminal conspiracy has been made by P.W.3 Dharamraj @ Bablu in his examination-in-chief that he had overheard a conversation between the appellants, Vinmati Devi and Ram Briksh Maurya when he had gone to his grandfather's quarter after returning from New Delhi in which appellant Ram Briksh Maurya was telling Vinmati Devi that the old man was an obstacle in their way and in case he was removed then not only she will get his pension but also an appointment on compassionate ground and thereafter they would live happily. But there is nothing on record indicating that P.W.3 Dharamraj @ Bablu had told either P.W.1 informant Radheyshyam Maurya or P.W.4 Ravindra Kumar Maurya about the aforesaid conversation. Even in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., he had not disclosed the aforesaid fact to the Investigating Officer and when he was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by the defence counsel which did not mention the aforesaid conversation between the appellants, Vinmati Devi and Ram Briksh Maurya which he had over heard in April, 2006, he stated that he had told the Investigating Officer about the aforesaid conversation but he had not recorded the same in his statement and for the aforesaid omission on his part, he had no explanation. No explanation is forthcoming why the aforesaid fact was not disclosed by P.W.3 Dharamraj @ Bablu to his father and uncle. Neither P.W.1 informant Radheyshyam Maurya nor P.W.4 Ravindra Kumar Maurya have deposed that P.W.3 Dharamraj @ Bablu had informed them about the conversation between the appellants which he had overheard a couple of months before the incident which clearly indicates that P.W.3 Dharamraj @ Bablu by stating the aforesaid facts for the first time in his statement recorded before the trial court, not only made a material improvement in his evidence but the said allegation was clearly an afterthought.

¶58

¶59

Thus, upon a holistic view of the facts of the case and upon a critical scrutiny of the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, we find that although it is proved from the medical evidence on record that the death of deceased Rambrat Maurya in his quarter on 11.06.2006 at about 12:30 p.m. was homicidal but there is absolutely no evidence, direct or circumstantial, connecting the appellants with the crime. None of the prosecution witnesses have stated that they had seen the appellants inside or near the house of the deceased at the time of the occurrence. The evidence of criminal conspiracy given by P.W.3 Dharamraj @ Bablu that he had overheard the conversation in April, 2006 taking place between the appellants, Vinmati Devi and Ram Briksh Maurya while they were sitting in the courtyard of the house of the deceased which suggested that they were planning to eliminate the deceased, does not inspire any confidence and is not sufficient to convict the appellant Ram Briksh Maurya u/s 302 r/w 120-B I.P.C.

¶60

Thus, we find that the conviction of the appellants, Vinmati Devi, Ram Briksh Maurya and Pati Ram Singh recorded by the trial court and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to them cannot be sustained and are liable to be set-aside.

¶61

All the three criminal appeals stand allowed .

¶62

The impugned judgement and order is hereby set-aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges framed against them.

¶63

Vinmati Devi, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2437 of 2013, is in jail. She shall be released forthwith unless she is wanted in some other case subject to her complying with the provisions of Section 437A of Cr.P.C.

¶64

Ram Briksh Maurya, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1704 of 2013 and Pati Ram Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No . 1753 of 2013, are on bail. They need not surrender. There sureties are discharged and their bail bonds cancelled. Each of the appellants shall comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

¶65

Order Date :- 31.5.2018/KS

Vinmati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinmati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Birbal Vs State of U.P.

Rahul and Anr. Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Manik Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Dr. Sumit Agrawal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Duliya @ Duniya Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others