Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand vs Sajid & Another on 30 July, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Leave to Appeal No.351 of 2024
With
Government Appeal No.226 of 2024
State of Uttarakhand ........Appellant
Versus
Sajid & another ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
State/appellant.
JUDGMENT
Coram: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Delay Condonation Application (IA No.1/2024) There is delay of 107 days in preferring this appeal alongwith an application seeking leave to appeal; being sufficiently explained in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, the same is condoned. The application seeking condonation of delay stands allowed accordingly.
Special Leave to Government Appeal.
2. By means of this application, the State seeks to file the government appeal along with leave against the judgment and order dated 10.01.2024 passed by Learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2019 (State vs. Sajid and Anr.) whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 364/34 and 201/34 of IPC.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that 2 complainant's younger brother Sonu alias Parvez went out on his scooter on 02/07/2018 to have a shave but when he did not return the whole night they started looking for him. During that time Iqbal told that he had seen Sonu and accused Sadiq going towards Puljaatwada at around 10:50 PM on 2nd July. When they searched for the accused Sadiq he was not found at home. During the search itself Wajid told that he had seen Sonu standing with accused Sajid and accused Sadiq near rickshaw stand Jwalapur on Puljaatwada bridge at around 11 PM on night of 2nd July. On the basis of above information the case was registered as case crime no. 501/2018 on 07/07/2018 at police station Jwalapur, District Haridwar under Sections 302, 364 and 201.
4. The investigation officer conducted investigation of the case, recorded the statement of the witnesses and after inspecting the place of occurrence, prepared the site plan, inquest and sent dead boy for post mortem and on completion of investigation submitted a charge sheet under Section 302, 364 and 201 IPC in the court. The cognizance was taken against the accused/respondents and the case was committed to Learned Sessions Judge for trial.
5. The charges were framed on 30/03/19 against the accused/respondents under S. 302, 364 and 201 which they denied and claimed to be tried.
6. As many as eleven witnesses were produced by the prosecution to prove its case against the accused. They are PW 1 Shahrun, PW 2 Iqbal, PW 3 Wajid Ali, PW 4 Arshad, PW 5 Anish, PW 6 Constable Suman Lal, PW 7 Inspector Amarjeet Singh, PW 8 Dr. Pankaj Agarwal, PW 9 S.I. Vikas Rawat, PW 10 S.I. Sanjiv Thapliyal and PW 3 11 SHO Chandrabhan Singh and documentary evidence was exhibited by the prosecution witnesses.
7. Thereafter, the statement of accused/ respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the accused stated the prosecution case to be false and stated that he was innocent but did not give any evidence in defence.
8. The trial court on conclusion of trial found that the prosecution could not prove the case against the accused/respondent beyond all reasonable doubt and it accordingly proceeded to acquit the accused/respondents as mentioned in Para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this government appeal with an application for leave to appeal.
9. PW 1 Shahrun reiterated the version of the FIR that his younger brother Sonu alias Parvez went out on his scooter on 02/07/2018 to have a shave but when he did not return the whole night they started looking for him. During that time Iqbal told that he had seen Sonu and accused/respondent Sadiq going towards Puljaatwada at around 10:50 PM on 2nd July. When they searched for the accused Sadiq he was not found at home. During the search itself Wajid told that he had seen Sonu standing with respondent/accused Sajid and respondent/accused Sadiq near rickshaw-stand Jwalapur on Puljaatwada bridge at around 11 PM on night of 2nd July.
10. PW 2 Iqbal on oath stated that on 02/07/2018 at around 11:45, he saw Sonu along with Sadiq going towards the Puljaatwada on his scooter. On the third day he got to know that Sonu has not returned to his home, 4 he further got to know that the dead body of Sonu was recovered from Mangalore canal with his hands tied.
11. PW 3 Wajid Ali turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. He further denied seeing Sonu along with accused Sajid and Sadiq near Puljaatwada.
12. PW 4 Arshad Ali was a Panchayatnama witness. He did verify his signatures on the paper but clarified that the police had taken his signatures on blank paper.
13. PW 5 Anish was a Panchayatnama witness. He on oath stated that he only saw the dead body in a sealed manner but denied witnessing any injury marks on his head or his hands and tied legs.
14. PW 7 Inspector Amarjeet Singh who was the inspector on oath stated that he was the one who arrested the accused. He further stated that accused persons while confessing the crime stated that Sajid had an affair with deceased Sonu's wife and he killed him to marry her.
15. PW 8 Dr. Pankaj Agarwal who was the doctor conducting the post-mortem. On his examination in chief stated that injuries along with drowning was the cause of death.
16. The trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of events required to convict a person on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The trial court also concluded that the prosecution failed to establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused.
517. Accordingly, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and it accordingly acquitted the accused.
18. As per Sharad Birdhi Chandra Sharda v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622), it is a well settled principle of law that to convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidences five principles have to be fulfilled which are:
(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established
(ii) The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty
(iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency
(iv) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency
(v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
19. Since the prosecution failed to discharge its onus we are in full agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court. Nothing substantial could be argued by learned State Counsel so as to warrant any interference in the judgment passed by trial court. Accordingly, application seeking leave to appeal is 6 rejected.
Government Appeal No. 226/2024
20. Since we have declined to grant leave accordingly, this Government Appeal is also dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari,J.) 30.07.2024 AK