Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Munish and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2018GOVA/438/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of accused persons charged with murder. Upholding the lower court's finding that circumstantial evidence was incomplete, the court noted witnesses failed earlier naming delays and the chain of evidence did not conclusively prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal is refused and application is rejected; appeal is dismissed.

State of U.P. Vs Munish and 2 Ors. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 438 of 2018 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Munish And 2 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶3

Heard learned AGA on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.10.2017 by means of which all the accused persons have been acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 302 IPC in Sessions Trial Nos. 354 of 2012 and 217 of 2012.

¶4

Learned A.G.A. has though strongly pressed the application but he has not been able to dispute the fact that the accused were not named in the FIR which was lodged after the body was found; subsequently it appears that after a period of 13 days two witnesses were produced i.e. PW2 and PW3, who admittedly are in relation or are relatives of the deceased and are family members and they have been introduced with the purpose of introduction of last seen evidence. Subhash has given an affidavit before the concerned SSP after a period of 13 days in which the names of the respondents have been mentioned with the saying that the deceased was seen in the company of these persons. The court below has rightly concluded that if the said two persons PW2 and PW3 had seen the deceased in the company of the accused and if they were present at the time of postmortem as admittedly at the time of postmortem of deceased and as an afterthought had disclosed the names to the first informant, which again an admitted fact on record then the names should have been disclosed immediately thereafter. It may also be appreciated that the court below has rightly concluded that the evidence of PW2 and PW3 is not credible and is highly doubtful.

¶5

We have perused the impugned judgment. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the concerned court has

¶6

¶7

recorded categorical findings after perusing the entire evidence on record.

¶8

It is one of the established principles of law that a witness may lie but not the circumstances. However, the court must adopt a cautious approach while basing its conviction purely on circumstantial evidence. The standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence is well established by a series of decisions of Supreme Court.

¶9

According to that standard the circumstances relied upon in support of the conviction must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and further it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

¶10

There is this basic rule of criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case of circumstantial evidence, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the court should adopt view which is favorable to the accused.

¶11

In reference to cases where there is no direct evidence and the decision has to rest on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court in a line of decisions has consistently held that such evidence must satisfied the following tests:-

¶12

(a) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

¶13

(b) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

¶14

(c) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and

¶15

(d) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation on

¶16

¶17

any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."

¶18

Reference, may also be made to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra

¶19

Thus, in view of aforesaid consistent legal position as elaborated above and also in view of the fact that learned A.G.A. has failed to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings so recorded in the impugned order, no case for interference has been made out.

¶20

It is an established position of law that if the court below has taken a view which is a possible view in a reasonable manner, then the same shall not be interfered with.

¶21

After perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the trial court after a thorough marshalling of the facts of the case and a microscopic scrutiny of the evidence on record has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused respondents and the findings recorded by the learned trial judge in the impugned judgment are based upon evidence and supported by cogent reasons.

¶22

No interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is warranted. Accordingly leave to appeal is refused and application is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.

¶23

Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.

¶24

Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.

¶25

Order Date :- 6.7.2018 Kuldeep

State of U.P. v. Munish and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Munish and 2 Ors.

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

State of U.P. Vs Ajeet Singh

State of U.P. Vs Raju and Others

State of U.P. Vs Lachchan Singh Alias Ram Lachchan and Others

Mahipal Vs State of U.P. and Another

State of U.P. Vs Smt. Guddi and 2 Others

Tara Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another