Allahabad High Court
Sewaram vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. on 11 May, 2022
Author: Narendra Kumar Johari
Bench: Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 53 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 9 of 2019 Appellant :- Sewaram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Pushpendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anshu Chaudhary Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Case is taken up.
None is present for the appellant in complainant appeal.
Ms. Shivangi Singh holding brief for Shri Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for accused respondent nos.2 to 4 and the learned AGA are present. Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2019 alnogwith affidavit has been filed to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Cause shown in the affidavit are sufficient. Delay condonation application is allowed. Delay is condoned. Office to allot regular number to the appeal. Record of Government Appeal No. 747 of 2018 is annexed with the present matter. A perusal of the same, it is evident that the said Government Appeal was preferred against the judgment and order under challenge in this appeal. Vide order dated 12.10.2018 Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the said Government Appeal. Since none is present for the appellant, the Court is proceeding to decide the matter with the help of the learned AGA. Heard learned AGA as well as the learned counsel for the accused respondent nos. 2 to 4.
The order dated 12.10.2018 dismissing the Government Appeal No. 747 of 2018 is as under:
"Heard Kumari Meena, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 02.07.2018 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Kasganj in Sessions Trial No. 94 of 2013 by means of which accused-respondents namely Ganga Prasad, Ravi Kumar and Virma Devi have been acquitted of the offences under section 302 IPC.
Having heard learned A.G.A. at great length and we have perused the record as has been recorded by the court concerned. Keeping in view the contention as has been raised at the bar of this Court and the grounds taken in the memo of appeal, the Court finds that the trial court has given cogent reasons while arriving at the findings based upon which the verdict of acquittal has been returned to summarize the case of acquittal it may be noted that the trial court has recorded the findings to the effect that its a case of circumstantial evidence where important links are missing and chain is not complete. The circumstantial evidence is not a such a nature that only one conclusion that on being guilty can be held against the accused-respondents. It is further recorded that there is no motive, there is no credible last seen evidence and evidence of last seen has been disbelieved after giving cogent reasons that the FIR is ante-time and lastly there are no eye witness on account which may show the participation of the accused-respondents in the alleged crime. It may also be appreciated that as far as the question of illicit relationship has been concerned that no emphasis by the prosecution and prosecution has failed to produce any evidence whatsoever in this regard.
Keeping in view the aforesaid findings and the observations of the court, the relevant findings are being extracted herein below:-
"la{ksi esa vfHk;kstu dFkkud bl izdkj gS oknh eqdnek lsokjke }kjk Fkkuk gktk ij bl dFkuksa ds lkFk ,d rgjhj izLrqr dh fd ^^ esjk iq= uoy flag dy fnukad 1-2-2012 dks VSEiks pykdj 'kke dks lkr cts ?kj vk;k Fkk vkSj VSEiks [kM+k djds rqjUr fdlh dk Qksu lqudj pyk x;k tc 8&9 cts rd okil ugha vk;k rks ge yksxksa us vkl&ikl xkao esa ryk'k fd;k dqN irk ugh pykA lqcg uoy flag dh iRuh 6-00 cts [ksr esa yxh cqthZ ls Hkwlk ysus xbZ rks mls ogka ij uoy flag dk twrk iM+k feyk rFkk ikl esa gh [kwu iMk feyk [kwu ns[kdj fdju nsoh ?kcM+k dj jksrh fpYykrh xkao esa vkbZ vkSj crk;k rc ge yksx ckx esa x;sA ckx ds iwjc lkbM okys dksus ij 'ko iMk feyk esjs yMds ds 'kjhj ij dsoy vUMj fo;j Fkk rFkk mldh xnZu dVh gqbZ Fkh vkSj jLlh xys esa yxh gqbZ FkhA vKkr cnek'kksa us esjs yM+ds dh gR;k dj nh gS mlds diMs+ ikl esa gh iMs+ gq, Fks lwpuk djus vk;k gwWA vko';d dk;Zokgh djus dh d`ik djsA fnukad 3-12-2012 dks oknh eqdnek lsokjke }kjk ,d nwljh rgjhj fujh{kd dksrokyh dklxat dks lEcksf/kr djrs gq, bu dFkuksa ds lkFk izLrqr dh fd fnukad 2-12-2012 dks uoy flag dh gR;k ds lEcU/k esa eqdnek vijk/k la0 933@2012 /kkjk 302 Hkk0 na0 la0 iathd`r djk;k FkkA vkt fnukad 3-12-2012 dks t; flag iq= joh chjcy fuoklh 'ksjiqj Fkkuk vekiqj dklxat gky fuoklh xzke rrkjiqj dklxat ,oa latho dqekj iq= juohj flag xzke ';keiqj Fkkuk fejgph gky fuoklh xzke rrkjiqj us eq>s crk;k fd ge fnuakd 1-12-2012 dks vius ?kj ds ckgj pcwrjs ij vyko Mkydj rki jgs Fks geus ns[kk fd 'kke lkr cts uoy flag VSEiw pykdj xkao okil vk;s rks xkao ds xaxk izlkn iq= vaxu yky o mldk Hkrhtk joh dqekj iq= us=iky] uoy flag dks cqykdj vius ?kj ys x;s vkSj FkksMh nsj ckn gh xaxk izlkn ds ?kj ls uoy flag dsa ?kj ls 'kksj epus dh vkokt vk;h ijUrq dqN le; ckn 'kksj cUn gks x;k yxHkx nks ?k.Vs ckn xaxk izlkn o mudk Hkrhtk rFkk xaxk izlkn dh iRuh fojek nsoh IykfLVd dh iUuh esa cka/kdj ckx dh rjQ dqN ys x;s lqcg uoy flag dh ckx esa yk'k feyh uoy flag dk xaxk izlkn dh vkSjr fojek nsoh ls uktk;t lEcU/k Fkk blh dkj.k xaxk izlkn o mlds Hkrhts jfo dqekj rFkk fojek nsoh us feydj uoy flag dks ?kj cqykdj mldh gR;k dj 'ko dks ckx esa Qsad fn;kA vr% vkils fuosnu gS fd eqdnes esa vfHk;qDr xaxk izlkn] jfo dqekj rFkk fojek nsoh dks uketn dj vko';d dk;Zokgh djus dh d`ik djsaA As per the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 the court has observed herein as under:-
ih0 MCyw0&1 eqdnek oknh lsokjke }kjk vius lk{; ds ist ua0 2 dh 15oha ifDar esa dFku fd;k gS fd ^^t; flag] chjcy dk yMdk gS tks bl eqdnesa esa xokg gS tks gekjs ;gka ,d lky ls jgrk gS VSEiks pykrk gS Loa; dk gS] ?kVuk ls fdrus fnu igys VSEiw [kjhnk Fkk eSa ugha crk ldrk VSEiw dk uEcj o fdl dEiuh dk gS eSa ugh crk ldrkA esjh lcls NksVh yMdh dk uke eqUuh nsoh gS bldh 'kknh ';keiqj esa latho ds lkFk gqbZ gS og Hkh bl eqdnesa esa xokg gS latho o t; flag dk xkao rrkjiqj esa dksbZ edku ugha gSA ?kVuk ds le; latho mlh fnu esjs ?kj vk;sA^^ blh izdkj xokg t; flag ih0 MCyw0 2 }kjk vius lk{; ds ist la0 2 ij igys iSjk esa dFku fd;k gS fd ^^ eSa 'ksjiqj Fkkuk vekiqj dk eyw fuoklh gWwA e`rd uoy fd'kksj esjs lxs cguksbZ Fks rrkjiqj esa eSa muds lkFk gh jgrk FkkA esjk Lo;a dk rrkjiqj esa edku ugha gS] latho dk rrkjiqj esa futh edku ugha gSA ^^ bl izdkj mijksDr lk{; ls ;g rF; Li"V gks tkrk gS fd mijksDr nksuksa xokg ih0 MCyw0 2 t; flag o ih0 MCyw0 3 latho dqekj eqdnek oknh lsokjke ds nkekn Fks rFkk e`rd uoy flag ds lxs cguksbZ gS rFkk mudk xzke rrkjiqj esa Loa; dk dksbZ edku ugha gS vkSj ?kVuk ds fnu o le; ij og nksuksa eqdnek oknh ds ?kj ij crkSj fjLrsnkj ikfjokfjd lnL; dsa :i esa ekStwn FksA bl izdkj ih0 MCyw0 2 t; flag o ih0 MCyw0 3 latho dqekj dk vius lk{; esa fd;k x;k ;g dFku fd ^^fnukad 1-2-2012 dks lka; 7-00 cts og vyko rki jgs Fks uoy fd'kksj VSEiw ysdj vk;s bruh nsj esa jfo dqekj o xaxk izlkn us uoy flag dks cqyk fy;k rFkk vius ?kj ys x;s muds o esjs edku dh ,d gh nhokj gS yxHkx vk/ks ?k.Vs ckn 'kksj epus dh vkokt vk;h fQj dqN nsj ckn 'kksj cUn gks x;k rFkk ikSu ?k.Vs ] ,d ?k.Vs ckn IykfLVd dh iYyh esa xaxk izlkn jfo dqekj fojek nsoh rhuksa yksx uoy fd'kksj dks cka/kdj ckx dh rjQ ys tk jgs Fks^^ fcydqy gh vLokHkkfod o vizkd`frd izrhr gksrk gS D;ksfd mijksDr nksuksa lk{khx.k }kjk ;fn fnukad 1-12-2012 dks e`rd uoy flag dks vfHk;qDr jfo dqekj o xaxk izlkn }kjk ys tkrs gq, ns[kk tkrk rks fuf'pr :i ls muds }kjk mDr rF; yk'k dh cjkenxh ds le; eqdnek oknh vius llqj dks crk;k tkrk rFkk yk'k feyus ds i'pkr ntZ gqbZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa mDr rF; dk mYys[k vko';d :i ls gksrk D;ksafd LokHkkfod :i ls gR;k tSls nq%[kn ?kVukdze ij yk'k dh cjkenxh ds le; mijksDr nksuksa xokg t; flag o jktho dqekj tks fd e`rd uoy flag ds lxs cguksbZ Fks rFkk ml fnu e`rd ds ?kj ij fj'rsnkjh ds dkj.k Bgjs gq, Fks t:j mifLFkr jgs gksxsa vkSj yk'k dh cjkenxh ds le; mijksDr nksuksa xokg tks fd e`rd ds lxs cguksbZ Fks muds }kjk mDr rF; Ykk'k dh cjkenxh ds le; mifLFkr yksxksa o iapk;rukek Hkjrs le; iqfyl vf/kdkjhx.k dks vko';d :i ls crk;k tkrkA bl izdkj ;fn og okLrfod :i ls vafre n`'; ds lk{kh gksrs vkSj mUgksus e`rd dks vfHk;qDrx.k jfo dqekj o xaxk izlkn ds lkFk tkrs gq, ns[kk gksrk rks yk'k dh cjkenxh o iapk;rukek ds le; vU; yksxksa o iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa ds le{k mDr rF; mlh le; mtkxj gks tkrkA yk'k dh cjkenxh o iapk;r Hkjs tkus o izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ gksus ds vxys fnu vFkkZr fnukad 3-12-2012 dks mDr rF; dk vpkud izdk'k esa vkuk vfHk;kstu dgkuh esa lUnsg mRiUu dj jgk gSA blds vfrfjDr mDr xokgku ih0 MCyw0 2 t; flag o ih0 MCyw0 3 latho dqekj }kjk fnukad 1-12-2012 dks e`rd uoy flag dks vfHk;qDrx.k jfo dqekj o xaxk izlkn ds lkFk tkrs tq, ns[kuk] FkksMh nsj ckn e`rd uoy flag dh vkokt lqukbZ nsuk rFkk FkksMh nsj ckn IykfLVd dh iYyh esa cka/kdj vfHk;qDrx.k jfo dqekj] xaxk izlkn o fojek nsoh }kjk ckx dh rjQ ys tkus dk rF; blfy, Hkh vLokHkkfod o vizkd`frd izrhr gksrk gS fd mijksDr nksuksa xokg uoy flag ds lxs cguksbZ gS ;fn okLro esa muds }kjk e`rd uoy flag dks vfHk;qDrx.k ds lkFk ns[ks tkus ds ckn e`rd uoy flag dk 'kksj muds }kjk lquk tkrk rks LokHkkfod :i ls og vfHk;qDrx.k ds ?kj e`rd uoy flag dks ns[kus o gLr{ksi djus ds fy, t:j igqaprs vkSj uoy flag dh iYyh esa cka/kdj ckx dh rjQ ys tkrs gq, ns[ks tkus ds ckn ;qfDrlaxr le; esa uoy flag ds ?kj ij ;qfDr;qDr le; ij okil u vkus ij vugksuh dh vk'kadk ls xzflr gksdj jkr esa gh uoy flag dks ryk'k djrs le; vafre le; vfHk;qDrx.k ds lkFk e`rd uoy flag dks tkrs gq, ns[kus ds rF; dks t:j O;Dr djrs vkSj e`rd ds ifjtuksa dks LokHkkfod :i ls crkrs eqdnek oknh lsokjke }kjk viuh izFke lwpuk fjikVZ fnukafdr 2-12-2012 esa gh bl vk'k; dks Li"V dFku fd;k gS fd ^^ 8&9 cts rd okil ugh vk;k rks ge yksxks us vkl&ikl xkao esa ryk'k fd;k dqN irk ugh pykA^^ bl izdkj tc eqdnek oknh o mlds ifjtu vius iq= dks vkl& ikl ryk'k dj jgs Fks rks ml le; mijksDr xokgku tks fd e`rd ds lxs cguksbZ o eqdnek oknh ds nkekn Fks] fuf'pr :i ls mDr rF; dk [kqyklk djrsA blds vfrfjDr Lohd`r :i ls mDr nksuksa xokg t; flag o latho dqekj ?kVuk ds fnu o le; ij crkSj fj'rsnkj eqdnek oknh ds ikfjokfjd lnL; ds :i esa ekStwn Fks rFkk ?kj ds ckgj vyko rki jgs FksA ih0 MCyw0 2 t; flag }kjk vius lk{; ds iSjk nks dh pkSFkh iafDr esa Li"V :i ls ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd ^^ tgka ge rki jgs Fks ogh cxy esa xaxk izlkn dk edku gSA^^ ;fn nksuksa xokgku t; flag o latho dqekj }kjk vfHk;qDrx.k ds ?kj ls e`rd uoy flag dh vkokt lquh tkrh rks fuf'pr :i ls uoy flag ds ifjtukas o xkao ds vU; iMksfl;ksa dks Hkh e`rd uoy flag dh vkokt lqukbZ nsrhA izLrqr izdj.k ds fo"k; esa ;g rF; Hkh egRoiw.kZ :i ls mYys[kuh; gS fd izLrqr izdj.k dh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fnukad 2-12-2012 dks le; 7-50 ,0 ,e0 ij vfHkfy[kr dh xbZ gSA mDr rgjhj ds ys[kd ghjk flag iq= lsokjke gSA bl lEcU/k esa e`rd uoy flag ds HkkbZ vfuy dqekj ih0 MCyw0 6 dk lk{; Hkh egRoiw.kZ gS mlds }kjk vius lk{; ds ist la0 2 ij dFku fd;k gS fd ^^ eq>s fnukad 2-12-2012 dks ikSus N% cts vius HkkbZ dh e`R;q dh lwpuk feyh FkhA ml le; eSa izksij fldUnjkckn gh ekStwn Fkk eSa vius HkkbZ dh e`R;q dh lwpuk ikdj ek:rh xkMh ls dklxat vk;k Fkk esjs lkFk esjs cMs HkkbZ ghjk flag Hkh lkFk vk;s FksA fldUnjkckn ls gesa dklxat vkus esa rhu ?k.Vs dk le; yxk FkkA ^^ bl izdkj ikSus N% cts lwpuk ikdj fldUnjkckn ls dklxat vkus eas rhu ?k.Vs yxs vFkkZr ikSus ukSa cts e`rd ds HkkbZ vfuy dqekj vius HkkbZ ghjk flag ds lkFk ?kVukLFky ij igqapsA izLrqr izdj.k dh rgjhj ghjk flag ds ys[k esa gksuk vfHkdfFkr gSa ,slh n'kk esa tc fd ghjk flag ?kVukLFky ij gh ikSus ukS cts igqapk gks rks muds }kjk izLrqr dh xbZ rgjhj ij 7-50 ,0 ,e0 ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ iathd`r dSls gqbZ ;g Hkh lansgkLin gS rFkk izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dk ,UVh Vkbe gksuk nf'kZr gksrk gSA bl izdkj izLrqr izdj.k tks fd iw.kZ :i ls ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{; ij fuHkZj gS eSa vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;s x;s lk{; ls lk{; dh dfM+;ks dh ,slh J`[kyk LFkkfir ugha gqbZ tks ;qfDr;qDr lUnsg ls ijs vfHk;qDr ds fo:) vkjksi dks lkfcr djrh gksA tgka vfHk;kstu lk{; ls nks er fudyrs gks ,d er vfHk;qDr ds nksf"krk dh vksj bafxr djrk gks vkSj nwljk mlds funksZf"krk dh vksj bafxr djrk gksA ,slh n'kk esa tks er vfHk;qDr ds i{k esa jgs ml er dks lkekU;rk viukuk pkfg,A And based upon the aforesaid findings and the conclusion the court has returned the verdict of acquittal.
In view of the facts and circumstances, learned A.G.A has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Satpal Vs. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 1892 of 2017) decided on 01.05.2018.
The counsel for the appellant has relied upon the aforesaid case nevertheless the established principle is with regard to the proximity of the time when a person went missing and when the body was found.
Keeping in view the circumstances of the present case i.e. a person went missing on 25.08.2012 and the body was recovered on 29.08.2012 and keeping this fact in mind along with parameter as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the following cases:- (i) Nizam and Another vs. State of Rajasthan 2016 (1) SCC 550 and State of Karnataka vs. Chand Basha 2016 (1) SCC 501 wherein the Apex Court has held that the close proximity between the last seen evidence and death should be clearly established and that if the time gap is long (as in the present case) it would be unsafe to base conviction on " last seen theory". In fact it would be safe to look for corroboration from other circumstances and evidences adduced by the prosecution. In the present case we find that there is no other corroboration of the last seen evidence. The time gap is also of almost four days.
Reference may also be made to another judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Braksha @ Zalim vs. State of Chattishgarh AIR 2016 SCC 2381. In the said judgment the Apex Court has again reiterated the legal position with the following observation. It is a trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against accused merely on the ground that accused was last seen with the deceased. In other words, conviction cannot be based on only circumstance of last seen. The Apex Court has further held that normally the last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the parameter of crime becomes impossible.
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.
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.
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.
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:-
(a) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(b) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(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
(d) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation on 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."
Reference, may also be made to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the cases of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622. On a bare perusal of the judgment and order dated 02.07.2018, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial court is not a possible view or a 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."
In view of the above, present criminal appeal is also decided in the same terms and conditions, as in the order dated 12.10.2018 passed in the aforesaid Government Appeal. The criminal appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.
Order date : 11.5.2022 safi