Allahabad High Court
Sanjeev Alias Sanju vs State Of U.P. on 3 March, 2020
Author: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH A.F.R. Reserved on 03.01.2020 Delivered on 03.03.2020 Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1431 of 2007 Appellant :- Sanjeev Alias Sanju Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Afaq Zaki Khan,Anil Kumar Tiwari,Arun Kumar,Neeta Singh Chandel,Rishad Murtaza,Udai Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Saurabh Chandra Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Per: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Chandra Shekhr Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This criminal appeal has been filed by appellant/Sanjeev alias Sanju Yadav under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 08.06.2007 passed by Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court-III, Faizabad in Sessions Trial No. 73 of 2005, "State Vs. Sanjeev alias Sanju Yadav", arising out of Case Crime No. 1380 of 2004, under Section 302 of I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced for rigorous life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default clause.
3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this criminal appeal are that on 24.07.2004 at 21:15 hours a written application was presented to S.H.O. Kotwali, Faizabad by informant Shyam Sundar Malviya stating therein that his brother-in-law (Sala) is resident of Village Dhangada, Police Station Salempur, District Deoria. He after passing M.A. examination was living with him since 1997 and was also teaching in his school namely Surabhi Siksha Sansthan. A girl student of his school wrote a love letter to one Nirankar, resident of ''Datta ka purva', P.S. Kotwali which some how came in the custody of his brother-in-law, in relation to which, his wife Smt. Girija Malviya who is the Principal of school scolded appellant Sanjeev @ Sanju Yadav and Nirankar. It was further stated that some hot talks had taken place between his brother-in-law Rakesh Kumar Dubey and Sanjeev @ Sanju Yadav and Sanjeev asked his brother-in-law to hand over the love letter to him and when his brother-in-law refused to hand over the same to Sanjeev, he threatened that his brother in law will have to pay the price for that.
It was further stated that on the basis of above enmity on 24.07.2004 at 8:00 pm. his brother-in-law Rakesh was returning to his house with two bags of ''Morang' laden on his bicycle and when he reached a little ahead of the house of Surajdeen, appellant Sanjeev @ Sanju Yadav and one unknown person with him dragged his brother-in-law into the bushes and Sanjeev @ Sanju committed his murder by assaulting him with a sharp edged weapon. The incident was witnessed by many persons and the accused persons fled away from the scene of crime. There was enough moonlight and electricity light, at the time of incident.
4. On the basis of the above mentioned written application, (Exhibit-ka-1), an F.I.R. under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered against Sanjeev @ Sanju and one unknown person at Case Crime No. 1380 of 2004 at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Faizabad and the substance of this information was entered into the G.D. Serial No.-62, (Exhibit-ka-5) at 21:15 hours on 24.07.2004. Investigation of the crime was entrusted to S.I. Ram Shiromani Singh, who at once arrived at the spot and collected the belongings of the deceased which was scattered around his dead body and prepared a memo (Exhibit-ka6). He also collected the blood stained and simple soil from the spot and kept the same in separate containers and also prepared a memo, (Exhibit-ka-7) of the same. He prepared the Site Plan, (Exhibit-ka-8) on the pointing of the informant and also prepared the Inquest Report (Exhibit-ka-9) of the dead body and also prepared necessary papers i.e. Form No.-13, Photo Lash, Chitthi R.I., Chitthi C.M.O., Sample of Seal, (Exhibit-ka-10 to 15) for the purpose of postmortem.
5. The postmortem on the dead body of deceased Rakesh Kumar Dubey was performed by P.W.-5/Dr. Chandra Shekhar Singh on 25.07.2004 at 2:30 pm. at District Hospital, Faizabad. The deceased was found to be aged about 25 years and it was opined by the doctor that his death had occurred 3/4 day before and that he was a person of average built and rigor mortis had passed away from both extremities of his body. Following injuries were found on the body of the deceased:-
(i) Injury No.1/Incised wound 18 cm. x 8 cm. x bone deep over the anterior aspect just below the mandible all around except posterior of the neck, 14 cm. left 3rd Cervical vertebra artery clean cut.
(ii) Injury No.2/Incised wound 14 cm. x 2 cm. x muscle deep over right posterior occipital region 5 cm. above the ear.
On internal examination, 3rd Cervical vertebra was found clean cut, trachea was clean cut and divided, both chambers of the heart were empty, oesophagus was clean cut and divided. 200 grams of semi-digested food was found in the stomach. Small intestine was full of fluid and gases while faecal matter and gases were found in the large intestine, gall bladder was half full, spleen and kidneys were pale, bladder was empty and the cause of death of the deceased was ascertained as shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem wounds. P.W.-4/Dr. Chandra Shekhar Singh proved to have prepared the postmortem report (Exhibit-k-3) in his hand writing and under his signatures.
6. On 25.07.2004 at about 3:00 hours, appellant Sanjeev alias Sanju was arrested and he stated to have confessed his guilt and also that he could get the weapon recovered which was used in the commission of the crime. A knife was recovered at his pointing and a memo of the same (Exhibit-ka-2) was also prepared. The investigation thereafter, was transferred to S.H.O. Ram Pal Singh., who after taking over the investigation of the case recorded the statement of the witnesses and sent the material exhibits for forensic examination and after collecting the report of the Forensic Lab (Exhibit-ka-18) submitted the charge-sheet (Exhibit-ka-19) against Sanjeev @ Sanju Yadav under Section 302 of I.P.C.
7. The case being triable by the Court of sessions was committed and charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. was framed against the appellant Sanjeev @ Sanju Yadav. He denied the charges and claimed trial.
8. The prosecution in order to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt relied on the following documentary evidences before the trial Court:-
Written application (Exhibit-ka-1), memo of arrest and recovery of knife by the appellant (Exhibit-ka-2), Postmortem Report (Exhibit-ka-3), Chick F.I.R., (Exhibit-ka-4), G.D. Qayami (Exhibit-ka-5), memo of seizing the belongings of deceased found at the place of occurrence (Exhibit-ka-6), memo of taking simple and blood stained soil from the spot (Exhibit-ka-7), Site Plan of the place of occurrence (Exhibit-ka-8), Inquest Report (Exhibit-ka-9), Chitthi C.M.O. (Exhibit-ka-10), Chitthi R.I. (Exhibit-ka-11), Photo Lash (Exhibit-ka-12), Report of Police Station to R.I. (Exhibit-ka-13), Letter to C.M.O. (Exhibit-ka-14), Sample seal (Exhibit-ka-15), Site Plan of the place of occurrence (Exhibit-ka-16), letter whereby the material was sent to forensic lab (Exhibit-ka-17), report of the forensic lab (Exhibit-ka-18), charge-Sheet (Exhibit-ka-19).
9. The prosecution also testified following witnesseses in support of its case:-
P.W.-1/Shyam Sundar Malviya (Informant/eye witness), P.W.-2/Smt. Girja Malviya, P.W.-3/Saurabh Malviya (Eye witness), P.W.-4/Gulab Chandra Malviya (Eye witness), P.W.-5/Dr. Chandra Shekhar Singh (Doctor, who conducted the postmortem), P.W.-6/Constable Lalmani Rai (Scribe of Chick F.I.R. and G.D.), P.W.-7/Ram Shiromani Singh (First Investigating Officer), P.W.-8/Ram Pal Singh (Second Investigating Officer).
10. Learned counsel for the appellant while pressing the appeal submits that the trial Court has committed manifest illegality in appreciation of prosecution evidence and has relied on inadmissible evidence and passed a judgment of conviction only on the basis of ''surmises and conjectures'.
It is further submitted that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the fact that the love letter allegedly written by the girl student to one Nirankar was never produced either before the Investigating Officer or before the trial Court and when the basis of the prosecution case was missing it was not justified for the trial Court to convict the appellant, more so when the girl who had allegedly written the love letter was also not being produced as a witness.
It is further submitted that it is not clear from the evidence on record as to whether the said love letter was written to Nirankar or to Sanjeev @ Sanju and that if the letter was written to Nirankar, how Sanjeev @ Sanju was concerned with the same. It is next submitted that all witnesses of fact and of recovery are family members and related to each other, while the independent witnesses having houses on both side of the scene of occurrence namely Surajdeen and Ram Narayan Gupta have not been produced before the trial Court as witnesses, therefore, the story of the prosecution is doubtful on this score. The recovery stated to have been effected on the pointing of the appellant is also not believable.
It is next submitted that Sanjeev @ Sanju was not studying in the school of P.W.-1/Shyam Sundar Malviya, while Nirankar was stated to be a student of that school. Therefore, the trial Court has erred in concluding that appellant was having any connection with Nirankar. The motive suggested by the prosecution is weak and has not been proved. The prosecution witnesses were not in a position to see the assailants, as there was no source of light and in site plan the Investigating Officer has also not shown any electricity pole around the scene of occurrence belying the story of the prosecution that there was an electricity pole around the spot. It has overwhelmingly been submitted that the prosecution witnesses who have claimed to have witnessed the incident are not reliable and, therefore, the appeal of the appellant be accepted and the judgment and order of the trial Court be set-aside.
11. Learned A.G.A., per contra, submits that the trial Court after meticulously appreciating the evidence available on record has came to a conclusion that the appellant has committed the offence and the finding of the trial Court is based on acceptable, reliable and truthful evidence of prosecution witnesses.
It is next submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses who claimed to have seen the occurrence is reliable, trustworthy and the appellant has also recovered the weapon of assault on his pointing and there is no difference or alteration between ocular and medical evidence, rather the medical evidence supports the ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses. The motive is also proved, however, there was no need for the same as the case was based on direct evidence of the eye-witnesses. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence available on record, no illegality appears to have been committed by the trial Court in arriving to a conclusion that the offence has been committed by the appellant. The minor irregularities committed in the investigation could not be the basis to doubt the prosecution.
12. Having heard the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, the question which arises for adjudication in this criminal appeal is as to whether the trial court has convicted the appellant on the basis of evidence available on record or the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.
Hon,ble Apex Court in Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras; AIR 1957 SC 614 has held as under:-
"The contention that in a murder case, the Court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much broadly stated."
"The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the general Rule recognized in Section 134 quoted above. The Section has enshrines the well recognized maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted." Our Legislature has given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon.
"Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution."
"Generally speaking oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely (1) wholly reliable (2) wholly unreliable (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first category of proof, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way- it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the Court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The Court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony."
Vadivelu Thevar case (supra) has been referred to with approval in many cases thereafter and it has been held that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. This is what the essence of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is. But, if there are doubts and suspicion about the testimony of such a witness, the courts will insist on corroboration. Therefore, it is not the number and the quantity, but the quality which is material. The time tested principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth around it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise.
13. Before proceeding further, it appears necessary that a brief survey of the prosecution evidence be made so that the evidence available on record may be appreciated in an effective way, keeping in view the above legal principles.
P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya, who is the brother-in-law (bahnoi) of the deceased- Rakesh has stated in his statement that a girl student of class-8th of his school wrote a love letter to Nirankar and appellant- Sanjeev @ Sanju. His wife Girja Malviya was the Principal of the school and deceased- Rakesh, was his brother-in-law who somehow got this love letter and showed it to his sister Girja Malviya and thereafter kept the same with him. On 24.07.2004 his wife, namely, Girja Malviya called Nirankar and appellant- Sanjeev and scolded them for this. Sanjeev asked Rakesh to handover the letter to him, who refused and some hot exchanges took place between them and Sanjeev threatened deceased- Rakesh of dire consequences.
He further stated that on the same day deceased- Rakesh went to took some ''morang' as some repair work was going on in the house of the informant. When deceased did not return for quite some time, he went out, at about 8:00 P.M. in search of him. When he reached at the ''kharanja' road, he saw in the light of electric bulb and moonlight that one unknown person dragged deceased towards bushes and Sanjeev assaulted deceased with a knife. According to this witness, Sanjeev assaulted Rakesh firstly on his ear and thereafter on his neck by which the whole neck of the deceased was cut and only a small portion of the same remained connected. Deceased- Rakesh was carrying two bags of ''morang' on his bicycle and the bags were scattered on the road. This incident was witnessed by his son Saurabh Malviya and many others. Sanjeev and an unknown person fled away from the scene and thereafter they went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. (Exhibit ka-1). He also stated that investigating officer had come on the spot and he had shown him the place of occurrence. The Investigation Officer recorded his statement and also took soil samples and bicycle of deceased in his custody.
P.W.2- Smt. Girja Malviya in her statement has stated that deceased- Rakesh was her brother, who was living with her and was teaching in her school. One of the girl student of class- 8th of her school wrote a letter to Nirankar and Sanjeev, which was taken by his brother and his brother showed that letter to her. She stated to have summoned and scolded both Nirankar as well as Sanjeev for this and there were some hot exchanges between Rakesh and Sanjeev and Sanjeev threatened her brother either to return the letter or to face the consequences. Her brother did not handover the letter to appellant- Sanjeev and due to this he was done to death by Sanjeev.
P.W.3- Saurabh Malviya is the son of P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya (informant) who has stated in his statement that his maternal uncle deceased- Rakesh Kumar was teaching in the school managed by his father and mother. Corroborating the statement of P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya and P.W.2- Smt. Girja Malviya, he further stated that a girl student of class- 8th wrote a letter to Sanjeev and Nirankar and the same was taken by deceased- Rakesh and he also showed this letter to his mother, namely, Smt. Girja Malviya, who in-turn scolded Sanjeev and Nirankar. Rakesh Kumar told Sanjeev that he will inform his parents about this letter on which a quarrel had taken place between them. Sanjeev was continuously persuading Rakesh to handover the letter to him while Rakesh was not handing over the letter to him and thereon Sanjeev had threatened his maternal uncle of dire consequences.
This witness has further stated that on 24.07.2004 at about 8:00 P.M., he went out of his house and when he reached at ''Kharanja'Road' he saw that Sanjeev was standing there with an unknown person and his maternal uncle, namely, Rakesh Kumar was coming on bicycle carrying two bags of ''morang'. At that time Sanjeev assaulted Rakesh with a knife on his neck and ear. He saw the incident in the light of electric bulb and moonlight. Apart from him, his father and other persons had also witnessed the incident.
P.W.4- Gulab Chandra Malviya is stated to be a witness of the recovery of a knife on the pointing of appellant- Sanjeev @ Sanju and has proved the knife, which was also presented in the Court as Material Exhibit No.1. He also stated that a memo was also prepared pertaining to recovery of knife.
P.W.5- Dr. Chandra Shekhar Singh has conducted the post-morterm on the body of the deceased- Rakesh on 25.07.2004 at 2:30 P.M. and has proved the post-morterm report in his writing and signature as (Exhibit ka-3).
He further stated that both the injuries, i.e., Injury nos.1 and 2 on the deceased were caused by a sharp edged weapon and both these injuries may have been caused on 24.07.2004 at 8:00 P.M. Detailed description of the post-morterm report has been given in the paragraph no. 5 of this judgment .
P.W.6- Constable Lalmani has proved the Chik F.I.R. as (Exhibit ka-4) and also the G.D. Qayami as (Exhibit ka-5) in his writing and signature.
P.W.7- Sub-Inspector Ram Shiromani Singh is the first Investigating Officer of the crime, who has stated that on 24.07.2004 after taking over the investigation, he departed towards the scene of crime and after arriving at the spot took into possession the dead body of the deceased and his other belongings which were scattered there. He also stated to have prepared a memo of the same as (Exhibit ka-6). He also stated to have collected the blood stained and simple soil from the spot and also prepared a memo of the same (Exhibit ka-7). He further stated to have prepared the site plan (Exhibit ka-8) of the spot at the pointing of informant and also prepared inquest report (Exhibit ka-9) of the dead body and after preparing necessary papers forwarded the dead body for the purpose of post-morterm.
He further stated that he arrested the appellant- Sanjeev @ Sanju on the same day at about 13:00 hours, who during interrogation confessed his guilt and a knife was recovered on his pointing. A memo of the recovered knife (Exhibit ka-2) was also prepared. This witness has also proved the site plan (Exhibit ka-16) of the place from where the knife was got recovered by appellant.
P.W.8- S.H.O. Ram Pal Singh is the second Investigating Officer of the case who after recording the statement of the witnesses and having found sufficient evidence against the appellant submitted the charge-sheet (Exhibit ka-19) against him.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the motive as alleged by the prosecution has not been proved and letter which was the basis of dispute has not been produced before the Court.
A three Judges Bench Of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Molu and others Appellants v. State of Haryana AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 2499 has opined as under :-
"11. Finally it was argued by the appellants, following the reasons given by the Sessions Judge, that there was no adequate motive for the accused to commit murder of two persons and to cause injuries to others. It is well settled that where the direct evidence regarding the assault is worthy of credence and can be believed, the question of motive becomes more or less academic. Sometimes the motive is clear and can be proved and sometimes. however, the motive is shrouded in mystery and it is very difficult to locate the same. If, however, the evidence of the eye-witnesses is credit-worthy and is believed by the Court which has placed implicit reliance on them, the question whether there is any motive or not becomes wholly irrelevant. For these reasons, therefore, we agree with the High Court that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt."
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Pillai Sree Kumar and another v. State of Kerala, AIR 1981 SUPREME COURT 1237 has held as under:-
"7. It is undisputed that some bad blood existed between the deceased on the one hand and the appellants on the other prior to the occurrence. The animosity may not have been very bitter but then it is too much to say that it could not possibly form a motive for the occurrence. The variation in human nature being so vast murders are known to have been actuated by much lesser motives. In any case, it is not a sine qua non for the success of the prosecution that the motive must be proved. So long as the other evidence remains convincing and is not open to reasonable doubt, a conviction may well be based on it."
In Praful Sudhakar Parab v. State of MaharashtraAIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 3107 Hon'ble Supreme Court stated as under :-
"16. One of the submissions which has been raised by the learned amicus curiae is that the prosecution failed to prove any motive. It is contended that the evidence which was led including the recovery of bunch of keys from guardroom was with a view to point out that he wanted to commit theft of the cash laying in the office but no evidence was led by the prosecution to prove that how much cash were there in the pay office. Motive for committing a crime is something which is hidden in the mind of accused and it has been held by this Court that it is an impossible task for the prosecution to prove what precisely have impelled the murderer to kill a particular person. This Court in Ravinder Kumar and another v. State of Punjab, 2001 (7) SCC 690 : (AIR 2001 SC 3570), has laid down following in paragraph 18:
"18........It is generally an impossible task for the prosecution to prove what precisely would have impelled the murderers to kill a particular person. All that prosecution in many cases could point to is the possible mental element which could have been the cause for the murder. In this connection we deem it useful to refer to the observations of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh {1999 (4) SCC 370 : (AIR 1999 SC 1293)}:
"No doubt it is a sound principle to remember that every criminal act was done with a motive but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have been committed if the prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of the accused to commit it. When the prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the victim, the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in the mind of the offender to such a degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of an offender towards the person whom he offended."
Keeping in view the above referred law, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution is not obliged to prove those facts which are either impossible for the prosecution to prove or which are locked up in the mind of the accused persons, as to what tempted them to commit the crime. Therefore, the cases which are based on direct evidence of the witnesses should be decided on the basis of quality and probative value of the evidence of such eye witnesses.
15. In the First Information Report, it was stated that deceased- Rakesh who was the brother-in-law of informant was living with informant and his wife. P.W.2- Girja Malviya, was running a school and deceased- Rakesh was teaching in the same school. It is also mentioned in the F.I.R. that a girl student of class-8th of this school wrote a love letter to Nirankar which somehow fell in the hands of deceased- Rakesh and P.W.2- Smt. Girja Malviya having seen the letter called and scolded Nirankar and Sanjeev @ Sanju. Sanjeev asked deceased- Rakesh to handover that letter to him or to face the consequences. However, deceased- Rakesh did not give the letter to appellant and on the basis of this enmity appellant along with one other person committed the murder of deceased on 24.07.2004 at 8:00 P.M. when deceased was returning home after getting two bags of ''morang' on his bicycle.
P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya in his statement has specifically stated that only enmity of appellant with his family was due to the love letter, which was written by a girl student of his school to Nirankar and Sanjeev. He also stated that Rakesh after showing this letter to his sister- Girja Malviya kept it with him and did not give this letter to Sanjeev and it was for this letter that Sanjeev has committed his murder. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he did not see the letter himself and his wife Girja Malviya told him about this letter and it was only on this basis, he has stated that the letter was written to both Sanjeev and Nirankar.
P.W.2- Smt. Girja Malviya in her statement has also corroborated the fact of writing a letter to Sanjeev and Nirankar by a girl student of class-8th of her school. She has also stated that after reading the letter she scolded Nirankar and Sanjeev and Sanjeev threatened her brother of dire consequences if the letter is not handed over to him. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she did not provide that letter to the investigating officer as her brother kept the same with him.
P.W.3- Saurabh Malviya has also stated of getting the information of this letter from her mother P.W.2- Girja Malviya and also that he himself had not seen the letter.
P.W.8- Sub-Insepctor Ram Pal Singh has also stated that no letter was given to him by anyone during investigation, however, P.W.2 Girja Malviya informed him about this letter which was written to Nirankar. He also stated that he did not record the statement of the girl student.
A perusal of the evidence of above witnesses would reveal that P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased- Rakesh has never seen the love letter which was written by a girl student of his school to Nirankar and Sanjeev and also that the love letter which was intercepted by deceased- Rakesh was either seen by the deceased or it was read by P.W.2- Girja Malviya, who was the Principal of the school, where the girl was studying. It has also come in the evidence that deceased- Rakesh after showing the letter to his sister, kept the same with him. So there is no evidence on record which may suggest that any letter was provided to P.W.2- Girja Malviya by deceased- Rakesh. Perusal of the memo prepared by the investigating officer of the belongings of the deceased found at the place of occurrence would also reveal that no such letter has been found either with the deceased or in his belongings which were scattered on the spot. Therefore, this possibility could not be ruled out that deceased himself had kept the letter somewhere or the same could have been taken away by the appellant after commission of the offence. It has been categorically stated by prosecution witnesses that apart from this letter, there was no enmity of any kind with the appellant and the deceased- Rakesh has done to death only due to this letter.
16. It is also pertinent to mention here that the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has also stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity but he has not specified as to what enmity he was having with the deceased. Instant case is based on the direct testimony of the eye-witnesses P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya and P.W.3- Saurabh Malviya, who have claimed to have seen the occurrence and have also claimed to have identified the appellant in the light of the electric bulb which was lighting on the electric pole near the place of occurrence and also in the moonlight. Since the case is based on eye-witness account, hence motive is not of much significance, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the prosecution has been able to prove that a letter was written by a girl student of class-8th of the school to appellant and Nirankar and the same was intercepted by deceased- Rakesh. P.W.2- Girja Malviya scolded Sanjeev and Nirankar and appellant- Sanjeev thereafter threatened the deceased to handover the letter or to face the consequences. In our considered opinion, this was sufficient motive for the appellant to commit crime.
17. It has been overwhelmingly argued by learned counsel for the appellant that all the witnesses of the prosecution are related to each other and also to the deceased and, therefore, there testimony could not be believed in absence of independent witnesses.
The law with regard to the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant pertaining to the appreciation of evidence of related or interested witnesses is no more res-integra.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gangabhavani vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Ors., MANU/SC/0897/2013 has held as under :-
"11. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon.(Vide: Bhagaloo Lodh and Anr. v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0700/2011 : AIR 2011 SC 2292; and Dhari and Ors. v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0848/2012 : AIR 2013 SC 308).
In State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Anr. MANU/SC/0254/1981 : AIR 1981 SC 1390, it has been held as under:
"5A. As mentioned above the High Court has declined to rely on the evidence of P.W. 1 on two grounds: (1) she was a "highly interested" witness because she "is the wife of the deceased"......For, in the circumstances of the case, she was the only and most natural witness; she was the only person present in the hut with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the only person who saw the occurrence. True it is she is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be called an 'interested' witness. She is related to the deceased. 'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested. A witness may be called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested'. In the instant case P.W. 1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit, and falsely implicating the Respondents."(Emphasis added)(See also: Chakali Maddilety and Ors. v. State of A.P. MANU/SC/0609/2010 : AIR 2010 SC 3473).
In Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0865/2004 : AIR 2004 SC 5039, while dealing with the case, it was held as under:
"7....Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses; soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passers-by will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere 'chance witnesses'. The expression 'chance witness' is borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and everyone must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country where people are less formal and more casual, at any rate in the matter explaining their presence."
In view of the above, it can safely be held that natural witnesses may not be labelled as interested witnesses. Interested witnesses are those who want to derive some benefit out of the litigation/case. In case the circumstances reveal that a witness was present on the scene of the occurrence and had witnessed the crime, his deposition cannot be discarded merely on the ground of being closely related to the victim/deceased.
In Bhagaloo Lodh and Ors. vs. State of U.P. reported in MANU/SC/0700/2011, it was held as under :-
"14. Evidence of a close relation can be relied upon provided it is trustworthy. Such evidence is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before resting of conclusion to convict the accused in a given case. But where the Sessions Court properly appreciated evidence and meticulously analysed the same and the High Court re-appreciated the said evidence properly to reach the same conclusion, it is difficult for the superior court to take a view contrary to the same, unless there are reasons to disbelieve such witnesses. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are inter-related to each other or to the deceased. (Vide: M.C. Ali and Anr. v. State of Kerala MANU/SC/0247/2010 : AIR 2010 SC 1639; Myladimmal Surendran and Ors. v. State of Kerala MANU/SC/0670/2010 : AIR 2010 SC 3281; Shyam v. State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/7112/2007 : (2009) 16 SCC 531; Prithi v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0532/2010 : (2010) 8 SCC 536; Surendra Pal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. MANU/SC/0713/2010 : (2010) 9 SCC 399; and Himanshu @ Chintu v. State (NCT of Delhi) MANU/SC/0006/2011 : (2011) 2 SCC 36).
In view of the law laid down herein above, no fault can be found with the evidence recorded by the courts below accepting the evidence of closely related witnesses."
It is therefore settled that merely because witnesses are close relatives of the victim, their testimonies cannot be discarded. Relationship with deceased is not a factor that affects credibility of witness, more so, a relative would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegation against an innocent person. However, in such a case Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence of such witness to find out whether he is a natural witness and whether in the facts and circumstances of the case his evidence is cogent and credible.
18. Perusal of record in the background of the above legal proposition would reveal that the place where the incident has happened is situated near the houses of Ram Narayan and Sooraj Deen. The incident is stated to have occurred at about 8:00 P.M. in the night. In sub-urban areas 8:00 P.M. in the night is not a time whereon the residents are usually outside, rather they remain inside their houses to relax after a full day of hard work. P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya has specifically stated that when he arrived at the scene of crime no resident was there and they all came on the spot afterwards. According to him deceased- Rakesh had raised alarm twice but his second cry was very mild. According to him his house is situated towards South of ''kharanja road' after five houses. He has acknowledged that houses of Sooraj Deen and Ram Narayan as well as that of Hriday Ram are also situated there. He further stated that wife of Ram Narayan Gupta seldom lived in her house and the place where deceased- Rakesh fell, is situated about 15 paces away from the house of Sooraj Deen. P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya has also stated that half an hour before his departure Rakesh had gone to take ''morang' and when he did not return for quite some time, he went out in search of him. P.W.3- Saurabh Malviya, who is the son of P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya has stated that at the fateful time he was going to Kaushalpur to meet his friend and when he arrived at the ''kharanja road' he saw the incident from in front of the house of Ram Narayan Gupta. According to P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya and P.W.3- Saurabh Malviya an electric bulb was lighting at the spot and there was moonlight also.
It has also come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that only six houses are situated between the house of informant and ''kharanja road' and according to P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya no one was present at that time at the scene of crime. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the deceased on the fateful day and time had gone to take ''morang' from a shop and he was returning from there, after taking two bags of ''morang' on his bicycle and also that the house of appellant- Sanjeev is situated on that way by which the deceased- Rakesh was returning. It has also come in the evidence that the distance of the shop of ''morang' from the house of P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya is about 1/2 to 2/3 km. Therefore, what transpires from the evidence of both witnesses of fact is that the incident had occurred at 8:00 P.M. in the night and there was no person other than P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya and P.W.3- Saurabh Malviya at the road where the incident had taken place. P.W.3- Saurabh Malviya has also stated that none from the house of Sooraj Deen or Ram Narayan was there at the time of incident. Therefore, this is not a case where the independent witnesses were present at the scene of crime and the prosecution has suppressed them. Rather in this case, this is a consistent case of the prosecution that deceased went out to fetch some ''morang' from a place which was situated about 1/2 to 2/3 km. away from the house of informant and the path to that place passes through the front of the house of appellant and when deceased did not return, even after half an hour, P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya went out of his house to search him and when he came on the road he saw the incident. P.W.3- Saurabh Malviya has specifically stated that he and his father came out of the house together though he came out to go to Kaushalpur and he has seen the incident from near the house of Ram Narayan Gupta. One more thing which fortifies the evidence of P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya is that the anxiety, which was being felt by him when deceased did not return for long time, appears to be natural as the house of appellant- Sanjeev was situated on the way through which the deceased had gone to take ''morang' and appellant had earlier threatened the deceased- Rakesh to face dire consequences if the letter is not returned to him.
In view of the above and having perused the evidence of the eye-witnesses P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya and P.W.3- Saurabh Malviya, in our considered opinion, it is not a case where the evidence of these two reliable eye witnesses could be disbelieved for want of independent witnesses.
19. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant pertaining to the fact that First Information Report of this case has been ''ante-timed' and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on such report and when the foundation of the case, in the shape of F.I.R. is doubtful the conviction could not be held, is concerned, the evidence available on record would reveal that F.I.R. of the incident was lodged on 24.07.2004 at 21:15 hours (9:15 P.M.) while incident is stated to have occurred on the same day at 20:00 hours (8:00 P.M.) and the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence has been mentioned in the Chik F.I.R. as 4 km. The date and the time of lodging the First Information Report and making of a corresponding entry in the General Diary of the police station has been sufficiently proved by P.W.6- Constable Lalmani as 9:15 P.M. on 24.07.2004. We have very carefully perused the testimony of this witness and have not found anything which may shake the reliability of this witness, so far as the date and time of lodging of First Information Report is concerned. Chik F.I.R. (Exhibit ka-4) shows that the investigation of the case was entrusted to Sri Ram Shrimoni Singh, who has also been produced as P.W.7 and has very elaborately described the steps taken by him in furtherance of the investigation of crime. In his evidence, he stated to have reached the spot and taken the belongings of deceased in his possession and also prepared a Memo (Exhibit ka-6). He also stated to have collected blood stained and simple soil from the spot and also to have prepared a memo of the same (Exhibit ka-7). He also inspected the spot and prepared the site plan (Exhibit ka-8) on the pointing of informant. He also prepared the inquest report of the body of the deceased (Exhibit ka-9) and all necessary papers for the purpose of post-morterm of the dead body. Perusal of Inquest report (Exhibit ka-9) available on record would reveal that it contains the time of lodging of First Information Report as 21:15 hours and also the manner of commission of offence, which corresponds with the manner of committing the offence stated in the F.I.R. The time of the beginning of the inquest has been shown as 22:20 hours (10:20 P.M.) and the name of the informant has also been stated as Shyam Sundar Malviya. Perusal of papers prepared for post-morterm would also reveal that in all these papers crime number and other particulars of the First Information Report have been mentioned. In our considered view, the cumulative effect of these documents would certainly be that at the time of inquest the First Information Report had come into existence and, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the F.I.R. being ''ante-timed' is not correct.
Another submission, which has been put-forth by learned counsel for the appellant is that recovery of knife on the pointing of the appellant could not be believed in the facts and circumstances of the case. He invited our attention to the site plan (Exhibit ka-16) of the place from where the recovery of the knife has been shown. Submission is that in this site plan the name of the accused has been shown as Rakesh Kumar while in this case Rakesh Kumar is the deceased and, therefore, the recovery could not be believed.
20. We have perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses available on record as well as judgment of the trial court. What we find is that the trial court has disbelieved the recovery of knife on the pointing of appellant on the ground that the memo of recovery (Exhibit ka-2) has been so written, as the writing in the recovery memo has become very congested towards the end of it and this belies the claim of the investigating officer that the ''fard' (memo) was written at the spot. P.W.4- Gulab Chandra Malviya has stated in his statement that on 25.07.2004 investigating officer called him and when he reached there he saw that ''Daroga Ji' was sitting in a jeep with appellant- Sanjeev along with other police personnel and he asked him to accompany them and thereafter a knife (chhuri) was recovered at the pointing of the appellant from a spot situated near the palm tree. It is also stated by him that some amount of dry blood was also visible on this knife. The knife so recovered has also been produced in the Court in a sealed condition. P.W.4 has also stated that ''Daroga Ji' prepared a memo of recovery of the knife and after writing the memo he read over the same to him and thereafter he put his signatures on the ''fard baramadgi' (Recovery Memo).
21. We have perused the ''fard baramadgi' (Exhibit ka-2) in the light of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and observations of the trial court and we find that the last four lines of the recovery memo have been written congestly in comparison to the writing of the ''fard' at the beginning or in the middle but it does not reveal that the writing in the ''fard' is of such a nature which may give an impression that the last four or five lines have been subsequently added or the ''fard baramadgi' has been manipulated, however, it certainly creates a little amount of doubt about the statement of the investigating officer that ''fard' recovery was written at the spot. The law with regard to any illegality or to say any irregularity committed by the investigating officer during the investigation of a criminal case is well settled according to which any illegality either committed knowingly or unknowingly by the investigating officer will not adversely affect the case of the prosecution and in any case the fate of a criminal trial could not be left at the mercy of an erring investigating officer. This is based on the simple legal proposition that why should the victim or in case of murder, his family suffer for the illegality committed by the investigating officer.
22. It is to be understood that Investigating Officer knows as to how the investigation should be done. He has all the means to conduct a proper and fair investigation but some times either knowingly or unknowingly, if any irregularity or even illegality is committed by the Investigating Officer, the same could not form the basis to reject the otherwise truthful evidence of eye witnesses. Any illegality or irregularity committed by the investigating officer, where the informant or witnesses are not privy, either bonafidely or deliberately, could not be the basis to reject the testimony of truthful eye witnesses. The Criminal Justice Administration could not be left on the mercy of an erring Investigating Officer.
In State of Karnataka vs. K. Yarappa Reddy, MANU/SC/0633/1999 it has been held as under :-
"It can be a guiding principle that as investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion of the court in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. It is well settled that even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious the rest of evidence must be scrutinized independently of the impact of it. Otherwise criminal trial will plummet to that level of the investigating officers ruling the roost. The Court must have predominance and pre-eminence in criminal trials over the action taken by investigating officers. Criminal justice should not he made the casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. In other words, if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the court is free to act on it albeit investigating officer's suspicious role in the case."
In C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. [C. Muniappan v. State of T.N., (2010) 9 SCC 567 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1402] , Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the law on this point in the following manner:-
"55. There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence de hors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation."
23. We are also of the considered view that recovery of any fact under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is only one piece of evidence amongst many pieces of evidence relied on by the prosecution and if in the process of appreciation of evidence any one piece of evidence is even not found proved, the duty of the Court is to see as to whether the remaining evidence which has been found proved is of such a nature that the case of the prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In Appabhai and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/0028/1988 it was observed that :-
"A witness though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him -perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment.
Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses therefore cannot be annexed with undue importance. More so when the all important "probabilities-factor" echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses."
Honble Apex Court long back in the matter of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v State of Gujarat as reported in AIR 1983, 753, MANU/SC/0090/1983 while appreciating evidence of witnesses in the background of minor discrepancies laid down the following principles:-
"(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
(2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
(3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
(4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
(5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guesswork on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
(7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the Court atmosphere and the piercing cross- examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him - perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment."
In Krishna Mochi and Ors. vs. State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0327/2002 relying on State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Anr. MANU/SC/0254/1981 it was opined by Hon'ble Supreme Court that normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so.
24. Having perused the evidence of the prosecution with care and caution, keeping in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered view that the F.I.R. in the instant matter has been lodged promptly. P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya, P.W.2- Smt. Girja Malviya and P.W.3- Saurabh Malviya though are closely related being husband, wife and son but their testimony appears to be natural in the facts and circumstances of the case. Their testimony could not be rejected only for the reason that no independent person was present at the scene of crime. At the cost of repetition, we would like to add that at 8:00 P.M. in sub-urban areas it is not expected that many persons would be out of their houses as it is a time to relax. Moreover, the departure of deceased- Rakesh to bring some ''morang' for the repair work of the house of P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya does not appear to be unnatural and when the deceased did not return for a long time, it was but natural for P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya to have gone outside in search of the deceased- Rakesh, more so in the background of the fact that to get the ''morang' deceased had to pass through the way whereon the house of appellant- Sanjeev was situated and he had threatened the deceased to face dire consequences in case the letter, which was written by a girl student of class- 8th, was not returned to him. Therefore, both P.W.1 and P.W.3, who went out to go to Kaushalpur, are natural witnesses of the crime and having scrutinized their testimony, we do not find any lacunae or contradictions in the same. In our considered opinion, the testimony of these two witnesses is reliable, trustworthy and could be safely relied upon. Therefore, no illegality appears to have been committed by the trial court in accepting their testimony as truthful. The ocular evidence of these two witnesses has been duly corroborated by the medical evidence available on record. We are also of the considered view that it is only the reasonable doubt, the benefit of which may be claimed by the accused persons(s) of a crime.
For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and in our considered opinion the evidence produced by the prosecution is strong enough to prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
In Gangadhar Behera and others v State of Orissa, reported in MANU/SC/0875/2002 it is held in para 18 and 19 of the report as under :-
"18. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. [See: Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/0034/1990 : 1990CriLJ562 ]. Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused. [See State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava MANU/SC/0161/1992 : [1992]1SCR37 ]. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. [See Inder Singh and Anr. v. State (Delhi Admin.). MANU/SC/0093/1978 : 1978CriLJ766 ]. Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation. "A judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties." (Per Viscount Simon in Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution (1944 AC (PC) 315) quoted in State of U.P. v. Anil Singh AIR 1988 SC 1988. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth.
In matters such as this, it is appropriate to recall the observations of this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0167/1973 : 1973CriLJ1783 :
".....The dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence and to the soothing sentiment that all acquittals are always good regardless of justice to the victim and the community, demand especial emphasis in the contemporary context of escalating crime and escape. The judicial instrument has a public accountability. The cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt....."
".....The evil of acquitting a guilty person light-heartedly as a learned author Glanville Williams in 'Proof of Guilt' has sapiently observed, goes much beyond the simple fact that, just one guilty person has gone unpunished. If unmerited acquittals become general, they tend to lead to a cynical disregard of the law, and this in turn leads to a public demand for harsher legal presumptions against indicated 'persons' and more severe punishment of those who are found guilty. Thus too frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead to a ferocious penal law, eventually eroding the judicial protection of the guiltiness....."
".....a miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less than from the conviction of the innocent....."
25. In view of the reasons given herein above, we do not find any force in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
26. The appeal filed by the appellant- Sanjeev @ Sanju Yadav, is thus, dismissed and the judgment and order of the court below dated 08.06.2007 is affirmed.
27. As per record of this Court and report of office dated 07.02.2020, the appellant- Sanjeev @ Sanju Yadav is in jail. He will serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial court.
28. A copy of this judgment be immediately sent to the trial court for compliance.
(Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.) (Devendra Kumar Upadhyay,J.)
Order Date :- 03.03.2020
Praveen/Saif