The division judge bench of the Uttarakhand High Court held that extra-judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence and acquitted the appellant of the charges under Section 302 of the IPC.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the PW-1 (Complainant) filed a complaint in which it was alleged that he along with his cousin used to do labour work and were residing in the house of Prithawi Raj Singh Chufal. He had left his cousin behind to go to work; upon returning in the morning, he discovered his cousin lying in bed with a serious cut on his forehead and extensive bleeding; he notified his landlord, and with the assistance of three or four of his associates, he took his injured cousin to the hospital, where his brother was pronounced dead. The accused, a labourer from Lakhimpur Kheri, had previously lived in the same room as his brother. But since he had a fight with the deceased four or five days prior, he doubted that the accused was the one who killed his cousin.
Thereafter, the charges were framed against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant contended that it was a case of blind murder and the appellant had been falsely implicated in the present case. Also, the order of conviction passed by the trial court was passed without the presence of any circumstantial evidence or any direct evidence on record. It was furthermore contended that despite the fact that witnesses PW-3 and PW-5 had become hostile, the trial court used their statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code to convict the appellant.
Contentions of the State:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that P.W. 3 and P.W. 5, who the appellant had talked about hitting the deceased on his head, became hostile during the trial. However, this did not provide the appellant with any relief, as P.W. 9, the Judicial Magistrate who the prosecution had questioned during the trial, recorded the statements of these two witnesses under section 164 of the code of criminal procedure. It was also contended that the deceased was last seen with the PW-3 and the appellant also made the extra judicial confession to PW-5.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that out of all the circumstances, only the last seen circumstance would be shown if we conclude that the deceased was last seen with the appellant. Whether P.W.-3's adverse evidence is enough to bring charges against the appellant at home will depend on a closer examination of the facts. Furthermore, there is no proximity between the deceased's last known location and when the deceased was hit.
It was furthermore observed that P.W.5- made a statement under Section 164 of the Code regarding extra judicial confession made by the appellant and evidence of an extrajudicial confession is, by definition, a weak piece of evidence that does not provide confidence to convict the appellant in the alleged evidence, even if the version provided under Section 164 of the Code does not seem credible and has since been retracted.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the chain of circumstances is incomplete which reflects towards the innocence of the appellant and the prosecution has completely failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court set aside the judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge and the appellant is acquitted of the charges under Section 302 of IPC. The court allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Banwari Lal Vs State of Uttarakhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 2014
Advocates for the Appellant: Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel
Advocates for the State: Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Deputy Advocate General
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
