The High Court rejected the State's application for leave to appeal against the trial court's order acquitting three accused persons of murder and dacoity, finding no perversity or illegality in the acquittal based on circumstantial evidence.
Application seeking leave to appeal for grant of leave to file a special leave petition was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Court No. - 51 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 421 of 2018 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Amit Dhama Urf Jhadu And 2 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- G.A. Counsel for Respondent :- Virendra Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned AGA appearing for the State on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.11.2017 by means of which the accused-respondents have been acquitted of the offence under Section 364, 302, 201 IPC, in crime no. 292 of 2013.
We have also had the advantage of hearing Sri Virendra Kumar Shukla, who appears for all the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3.
Learned A.G.A. has strongly pressed the application for seeking leave to file the appeal and also taken the note of the various evidence as has been recorded by the court concerned. Sri Virendra Kumar Shukla, appearing for the respondents has very strongly submitted the following points for the consideration of the court:-
(1) That the person Rajeev Bajpayee, as per the prosecution own case as taken away on 31.01.2013 at about 10:00pm in the night and First Information Report was lodged on 03.02.2013 by Sachin Bajpayee who claims to be an eye witness. However in this regard the counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention and the findings as recorded by the court concerned which has been extracted herein below:-
(a) izLrqr ekeys esa vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk erd jfo cktisbZ dks mlds ?kj ds lkeus ls tgkW og vius HkkbZ] iRuh o cgu ds lkFk cSBk Fkk rFkk Mh ts dk MkUl ns[k jgk Fkk ogkW ls ys tkus ds fy, cy }kjk mls foo'k fd;s tkus dh lk{; dk vHkko gSA vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk dsoy ;g dgk tkuk fd mlls mUgsa dqN dke gS] bl ij fcuk fdlh jksd Vksd ds jfo muds lkFk pyk x;k] of.kZr 'kCn fd dqN t:jh dke gS esa fdlh izoapukiw.kZ mik;ksa }kjk mRizsfjr fd;k tkuk Hkh Li"V ugha gksrk gSa rhuksa gh lk{khx.k ,d gh ifjokj ds gS tcfd ftl le; vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk erd dks ys tk;k tkuk dgk tkrk gS ml le; dkQh HkhM+ Fkh] 'kknh dk egkSy FkkA Mh ts ct jgk FkkA ,slh fLFkfr esa vU; iMkSlh o O;fDr Hkh erd o vfHk;qDrx.k ls ifjfpr gksus dk izl **a** Hkkouk gSA ;fn oLrqr% erd dks vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk cy }kjk foo'k dj ;k
2
izoapukiw.kZ mik;ksa }kjk mRizsfjr dj ys tk;k x;k gksrk rks vU; LorU= lk{kh Hkh gksrs fdUrq mudk vHkko gSA
(2) The counsel for the respondents further submitted that the body was recovered by the police on 05.02.2013 and thereafter accused Amit and Sandeep i.e. respondents no. 1 and 2 were arrested and implicated by showing that the recovery had been done at the behest and at the body of the accused-respondents. He placed reliance upon the finding of the Court which is extracted herein below:-
(b) blh izdkj iapk;r ukek ds izFke dkye esa Fkkus ij fjiksVZ fy[kkus dk le; ugha fy[kk tcfd 'ko izkfIr dk fnukad o le; fy[kuk dgk gS o izFke dkye esa fnukad ds ckn le; esa vksoj jkbZfVx dh gSA 'ko dks x<<s ls fdlus fudkyk ;g ckr iapk;rukek esa ugh fy[khA ;|fi fd fdu ds lg;ksx ls fudkyh x;h ;g fy[kk gS 'ko cjkenxh LFky ij vius ihNs HkhM+ dk vkuk dk vkuk tkuk rFkk ml HkhM+ esa lfpu cktisbZ jktw mQZ jktho 'kekZ o lqjsUnz 'kekZ dk gksuk dgk gSA i=koyh es fofM;ksaxzkQh ls lEcfU/kr lh0 Mh0 foospd }kjk layXu ugha dh x;h uk gh fofM;ksa xzkQh djus okys ;k QhYM ;qfuV ds fdlh O;fDr dks vfHk;kstu }kjk lk{; ls ijhf{kr djk;k x;kA vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls oknh us ftl lh Mh dks cgl ds Lrj ij fn;k gS mlds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd 'ko cjkenxh LFky ij igys ls gh dkQh HkhM+ ekStwn Fkh tks Li"V djrh gS fd 'ko cjken gksus dh tkudkjh iqfyl o turk dks igys ls gh gks x;h FkhA mDr lh Mh dks ns[kus ls ;g Hkh Li"V gksrk gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k dks dsoy 'ko cjkenxh LFky ij ys tkdj okil yk;k x;k gS] mudh mifLFkfr 'ko ds fudkys tkus ds le; ?kVuk LFky ij ugha gSA vr% oLrqr% 'ko cjkenxh LFky ls 'ko vfHk;qDrx.k dh fu'kkunsgh ij fudkyk x;k] lansg tud gSA ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd 'ko cjkenxh LFky ij mifLFkr HkhM+ esa ls fdlh dks Hkh 'ko cjkenxh vfHk;qDrx.k dh fu'kknsgh ij gksus dk lk{kh ugha cuk;k x;k gS] uk gh izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA vr% miyC/k gksrs gq, Hkh tu lk{kh dk vHkko Hkh ekeys esa lansg izdV djrk gSA
The attention of the court has further drawn the testimony of Mohd. Aslam PW-5 who has been introduced as an evidence and a witness of last seen. However it is apparent that in his cross examination he has not supported the case of prosecution the relevant finding in this regard is extracted herein below:-
3
(c) izLrqr ekeys esa vlye dks oknh lfpu cktisbZ us viuh nqdku esa ukSdj gksuk dgk gS rFkk viuh izfrijh{kk esa dFku fd;k gS fd vlye ls mldh eqykdkr 1 Qjojh dh lqcg gqbZ Fkh tc og pkch ysus vk;k FkkA vlye us mls crk;k fd mlds cM+s HkkbZ dks mlus eqfYteku ds lkFk tkrs gq, muds edku ls djhc 100 dne nwj eksgYys ls ckgj dh rjQ ns[kk FkkA mDr vlye dks vfHk;kstu }kjk ih0 MCyw0&5 ds :i esa ijhf{kr djk;k x;k gSA mlus viuh eq[; ijh{kk c;ku esa dFku fd;k gS fd 31-01-13 dks le; 10-30 cts vius ?kj ds lkeus ls fdlh dk tkrs gq, ugha ns[kk Fkk og ml fnu 12 cts 'kkSp ds fy, jsyos ykbZu dh rjQ [ksr esa ugha x;k vkSj uk gh gkftj vnkyr eqfYteku dks ogka cSBs gq, ns[kk Fkk uk gh gkftj vnkyr eqfYteku ds lkFk erd jfo cktisbZ dks tkrs gq, ns[kk Fkk mlus iqfyl okykas dks dksbZ c;ku ugha fn;kA bl lk{kh dk c;ku /kkjk 161 lh-vkj-ih-lh- tks foospd }kjk dsl Mk;jh esa izFke ipkZ 03-02-13 esa vafdr gS dks i<dj lk{kh dks lquk;k x;k rks mlus dgk fd ,slk dksbZ c;ku mlus njksxk th dks ugh fn;k FkkA bl izdkj vius ? kj ds ckgj ls tkus ds ckn vxyh dMh ds :i esa vlye }kjk erd o eqfYtekuksa dks ,d lkFk eksgYys ds ckgj tkrs gq, ns[kus o rnksijkUr djhc 12 cts eqfYteku dks fcuk jfo cktisbZ dk gksuk lkfcr ugh fd;k tk ldkA
Keeping in view the aforesaid finding, the Court concerned has framed the following points for consideration:-
bl izdkj ekeys esa miyC/k lk{; ds lE;d ifj'khyu ls o dr leh{kk ls fnukad 31-01-2013 dks jkr 10 cts vfHk;qDrx.k dk erd jfo cktisbZ ls vkdj gkFk feykuk o ;g dguk fd mlls mUgsa dqN t:jh dke gS bl ij e`rd jfo dk muds lkFk tkus ds vfrfjDr vU; ifjfLFkfr;ka ;qfDr ;qDr lansg ls ijs lkfcr ugha gSA mijksDr of.kZr ifjfLFkfr ds vfrfjDr vU; ifjfLFkfr;k fuEu fyf[kr gS&
1- vfHk;qDrx.k o erd dk ekSgYys ls ckgj oknh ds ?kj ls djhc 100 dne nwj tkrs gq, vlye tks oknh dh nqdku dk ukSdj Fkk ds }kjk le; 10-30 cts ns[kk ,oa iqu% jkr djhc 12 cts vfHk;qDrx.k dk erd ds fcuk ns[kk tkuk dks lkfcr ugha djukA
2- U;kf;d ckº; laLohd`fr tks Jherh mes'k xqIrk ds izfr vfHk;qDr lanhi /kkek }kjk fd;k tkuk dgk x;k gS dks lkfcr ugha djukA
4
3& ?kVuk dk dksbZ eksfVo gksuk lkfcr ugha djukA
4& erd dh ryk'k esa oknh o mlds cguksbZ jktw 'kekZ dk vfHk;qDrx.k ds ?kj tkuk fdUrq ;g ugha crkuk dh erd ds ckjs esa vfHk;qDrx.k ds ?kj ls D;k tkudkjh izkIr gqbZ] lkFk gh vfHk;qDrx.k mUgsa vius ?kj esa feys Fks ;k ugha] uk crk;k tkukA
5& 'ko cjkenxh LFky ij 'ko cjkenxh ds le; igys ls HkhM+ dk mifLFkr gksuk o vfHk;qDrx.k dks dfFkr cjkenxh LFky ij ys tkdj 'ko fudkys tkus ls iwoZ gh ?kVuk LFky ls okil ys vkuk rFkk 'ko cjkenxh LFky esa mifLFkr HkhM+ esa ls fdlh LorU= lk{kh dks ijhf{kr u djk;k tkuk 'ko cjkenxh LFky dk dksbZ uD'kk utjh u cuk;k tkukA iqfyl }kjk rS;kj djk;h x;h lh- Mh- dks rS;kj djus okys O;fDr dks vFkok QhYM ;qfuV ds fdlh O;fDr dks crkSj lk{kh izLrqr u fd;k tkukA
6& vfHk;qDr ds ykirk gksus dh frfFk 31-01-2013 ds ckn 05-02-2013 dks mlds 'ko dh cjkenxh gksuk bl chp vfHk;qDr ds ykirk gksus o foijhr vkpj.k dh ckcr lk{; dk vHkko gksuk lkFk gh erd ds ykirk gksus o mldh eR;q ds chp dh le;kof/k esa e`rd dk vfHk;qDrx.k ls brj fdlh vU; O;fDr ds lEidZ esa vkus dh laHkkouk gksukA
It is from the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is crystal clear that its case of circumstantial evidence where important links are missing the recovery was found to be false and fabricated by the police by court concerned. The court has clearly observed that there is no motive on record which may notice the accused-respondents to indulge in the said crime. The testimony of PW-5 i.e. Aslam who were introduced as a witness of last seen also has been falsify in his own words and thus it cannot be said that the view taken by the court concerned while acquitting the accused-respondents is perverse or illegal.
It has to be seen that as per the various decisions of the Apex Court and the principle of the law laid down for appreciation of the circumstantial evidence, it has been said by the Apex Court in various decisions that the cases based on circumstantial evidence that evidence should be strong. The fundamental rules by which the effect of the circumstantial evidence is to be estimated is that order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the
5
innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis except his guilt.
It has not been disputed by learned A.G.A., that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and nobody had seen the deceased in the company of the accused-respondent nor anyone had seen the body being dumped by the respondent.
Reference, may also be made to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the cases of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra[1] , this Court laid down the five principles as regards the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. This Court has reiterated those principles time and again. They are:
"(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
xxx xxx xxx
(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,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(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.
On a bare perusal of the judgment and order dated 20.11.2017, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial court is not a possible view or a
6
feasible view that could be taken by a reasonable person. Moreover as no illegality or perversity has been pointed out by learned A.G.A., this Court refuses to grant any indulgence in the impugned judgment.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently the appeal is dismissed. Let a copy of this order be certified to the court concerned.
Order Date :- 25.7.2018 Swati
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶30
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
State Of U.P.
Amit Dhama Urf Jhadu
2 Ors.
Vipin Sinha
Ifaqat Ali Khan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
