Jugal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2023CAPT/3809/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction and death sentence for murder of mother-in-law and brother-in-law by setting them on fire. Court found dying declaration unreliable due to inconsistencies with evidence, improvements in witness testimony, and unexplained prior arrest/FIR delay. Conviction reversed, appellant acquitted on benefit of doubt.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; conviction and death sentence set aside; appellant ordered to be released unless wanted in any other case. Reference for confirmation of death sentence rejected.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; conviction and death sentence set aside; appellant ordered to be released unless wanted in any other case. Reference for confirmation of death sentence rejected.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302 IPC is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record, particularly the dying declaration and eyewitness tes +2 more

A compact analysis

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.

Jugal Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

Jugal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2023CAPT/3809/2015

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; conviction and death sentence set aside; appellant ordered to be released unless wanted in any other case. Reference for confirmation of death sentence rejected.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; conviction and death sentence set aside; appellant ordered to be released unless wanted in any other case. Reference for confirmation of death sentence rejected.

Issue for consideration

A compact analysis

¶68

afternoon and Tiju and Karan Singh had accompanied him. He has admitted that in the written report he has not disclosed that Tiju and Karan Singh had seen the accused fleeing in the light of fire. He has also denied that his statement is based upon the advice received later. As per him, the accused got married to his sister long back and out of such wedlock three children were born. Accused used to harass his sister, however, no complaint was ever made to police about such harassment. In reply to a specific query, PW-1 has stated that till date, he has not been able to know as to on the date of incident where were the wife and daughter of the accused. He has also feigned ignorance about the fact that his bhanji (sister’s daughter) was getting married on that day. At the time when the accused came to the house, the deceased mother as well as Deepchand (deceased brother) were at home and that the accused came in their presence at the house. This witness has specifically stated that there are two rooms in the house and there is no television in the house. In the further cross-examination, this witness has stated that his mother and brother were sleeping on the same cot and that there is no lock put on the door on account of which anyone could come inside the house, particularly, as the height of wall is only 4 feet. He has also disclosed that it was raining when the incident occurred. He has also stated that he had tried to douse the fire by putting the cloth on his mother and brother. He has specifically stated that fire was not doused by water. The house of Tiju and Karan Singh is in front of his house. He has also stated that when he arrived at the place of occurrence by then Tiju and Karan Singh were already present at the dallan. He has also stated that dying declaration of his brother was recorded in his presence. He has also stated that the accused was arrested at about 8-9 in the morning itself. He has also stated that from the hospital he had gone straight to the police station at about 8- 9. He has also admitted that he had not seen accused coming with the petrol can. He has denied the suggestion that because there was a

¶71

Teeju son of Gorelal is PW-2 and has supported the prosecution case. As per this witness, daughter of accused got married at Amjhara Temple during summers of the previous year. On the same day at about 4:00 the accused came to his in-laws house and finding that his wife and daughter were not present, the accused hurled abuses and also extended threats to the deceased. The accused thereafter kept roaming in the village. As per this witness, he came out of the house at about 12 in the night to ease himself when he saw the accused coming out of the house of the deceased. The witness could hear screams and that he saw alongwith Karan Singh the accused coming out of the house. When he entered the house, the witness saw Chameli Bai engulfed in fire and her son Deepchand was also in fire. PW-2 and Karan doused the fire. He claims to have been informed by Chameli Bai and Deepchand that Jugal had entered the house and had poured petrol upon them. There was a burnt kuppi at the place of occurrence and he could smell petrol from it. In the cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that the IO recorded his statement on the next morning. The police had come at about 10:00 and the accused was already arrested by then. He has been confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein he has not disclosed the IO that accused was roaming around the well or that he had come out of the house at 12:00 to ease himself. He has also been confronted with his previous statement, wherein there is no reference of the accused coming out of the house. On the date of incident wife and daughter of accused were at home and that only Asha Ram (another son of deceased Chameli Bai) alone had gone to Amjhara Temple in the marriage. Deceased had also not attended the marriage. PW-2 has stated that there was nobody at home at 4:00 PM as Chameli Bai had gone to the well which is at a distance of about half a kilometre from his house. Accused came to the house first and when he found none, he went towards the well and that he had not seen the accused

¶114

stated that accused was arrested at 8-9 in the morning. Similarly, P.W.-2 has asserted that the I.O. came at about 10 along with the accused. P.W.-3 has also stated that the I.O. had arrested accused in the morning. From the weight of evidence on record, it is quite clearly established that accused was already arrested in the morning even prior to lodging of the F.I.R. There is another aspect which needs special mention at this stage. According to prosecution, the written report was made by P.W.-1 at 12:30 P.M. on 18.06.2013. P.W.-1 states that he had not scribed the written report and that it was got scribed through someone else. P.W.-11 has however stated that the F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of written report given by P.W.-1. He has also stated that P.W.-1 came all alone with written report. A specific suggestion has been given to P.W.-11 that in fact the written report was got written on the instructions of the S.H.O. at police station. The written report allegedly has been signed by P.W.-1. P.W.-1, however, admits that he has not written the report. It is, therefore, not clear as to who is the scriber of the written report. This fact assumes significance inasmuch as the record clearly shows that the police had received information with regard to the unfortunate death of Smt. Chameli Devi early in the morning hours. The accused was also arrested in the morning hours. Once that being the situation, the subsequent lodging of F.I.R. was expected to have contained narration with regard to such steps already taken that is preparation of inquest or arrest of accused etc. The Investigating Officer, however, has been produced as P.W.-13 and as per his statement the first entry in the case diary is after the registration of the F.I.R. No details/ records have been produced to the police with regard to receiving of information; steps taken by the prosecution during course of inquiry; arrest of accused etc. Had these facts been placed by the prosecution, it could have been ascertained as to what exactly was the manner in which the police received information about the incident and the manner in which the inquiry and latter investigation proceeded. The fact that such facts have been suppressed and concealed by the

¶134

once while playing the accused had kept his feet on his neck. The deceased has not stated anything about the first part of the incident which allegedly occurred. This assumes significance inasmuch as the prosecution case is that Deep Chand was also present when the accused came to his in-laws house. A specific question was then posted to Deep Chand as to whether any quarrel occurred with his mother to which he answered that he does not know. The deceased Deep Chand has also stated that after he was set on fire, he ran towards the court yard and jumped into a pool of water. This part of the testimony of the statement in the dying declaration is contradicted by the prosecution witnesses of fact P.W.-1 & 2, as per which the fire was doused by putting cloth on the deceased and the injured and not by pouring water. None of the witnesses have stated that Deep Chand had jumped in the pool of water. The statement of Deep Chand is, therefore, contradicted on this part also. So far as the version of Deep Chand in response to the first question is concerned, the deceased has admitted that he was sleeping with his mother. He has stated that accused happens to be his brother in law who poured petrol on them and set them ablaze. There is nothing on record to indicate that there was any light or electricity in the house. In the last question also Deep Chand has claimed that when the accused was pouring petrol on his mother then he saw him. We view with some suspicion, the statement of Deep Chand inasmuch as it is not clear as to how he knew that the liquid, poured upon him or his mother was petrol. There is not even an iota of evidence on record to show that the deceased were burnt by the use of petrol. It is difficult to conceive that as to how Deep Chand could know about the identity of inflammable substance. It is in that context that we attach some importance to the argument of defence that infact the dying declaration was a result of tutoring inasmuch as P.W.-1 has admitted that he was present when the statement of his brother was being recorded. Although P.W.-5 has stated that he had removed all family members present near Deep Chand yet the inference of tutoring

Jugal 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bareilly Development Authority Bareilly Vs Radha Madhav Sewa Trust

M/S Mohd. Alim Murgi Chara Udyog Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sanjeev Kumar Rana Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Shamshad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jugal 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bareilly Development Authority Bareilly Vs Radha Madhav Sewa Trust

M/S Mohd. Alim Murgi Chara Udyog Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sanjeev Kumar Rana Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Shamshad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Statutes considered

State of Up Vs Salim s/o Khalik and 2 Others

State of Up Vs Vaidya Vikram Dutt Shastri s/o Kaluram Tyagi