Allahabad High Court
Basant Joshi vs State Of U.P. on 26 September, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth, Santosh Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Criminal Appeal No. - 3449 of 2013
Basant Joshi
..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Sandeep Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Sunil Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Govt. Advocate
With
Criminal Appeal No. - 3450 of 2013
Pramod Chand Pant
..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Jitendra Rana, Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Sunil Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Govt. Advocate
Court No. - 47
Reserved On:-22.8.2025
Delivered On:-26.9.2025
HONBLE SIDDHARTH,J.
HONBLE SANTOSH RAI,J.
(Delivered By: Honble Santosh Rai,J.)
1. Heard Sri Naushad Siddiqui and Sri Akbar Shah Alam Khan, learned counsels for the appellants; learned AGA for State and perused the material on record.
2. The above noted criminal appeals are preferred under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. by the accused appellants Basant Joshi and Pramod Chand Pant to set aside the judgment and order dated 22.6.2013, passed by the Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No.1201 of 2010 (State of U.P. Vs. Pramod Chand Pant and another), arising out of Case Crime No.155 of 2010, under Sections 302/34, 394, 411 IPC, Police Station Lalkurti, DistrictMeerut, whereby the appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo three months imprisonment; sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 394 IPC along with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo twenty days imprisonment; sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 411 IPC. All the sentences to run concurrently.
3. Tersely, the prosecution case is that the complainant Surendra Kumar son of Sri Asha Ram resident of 128, George Street, Meerut, P.S. Lalkurti, Meerut has moved a written tehrir (Ex.Ka.1) at the P.S. Lalkurti on 30.05.2010 to the effect that on 30.05.2010 in between 02.00 P.M. to 06.00 P.M. some unknown miscreants entered into the house of his brother Narendra Karnwal, situated in Akshat Apartment, Begum Bagh and committed brutal murder of Narendra Karnwal, his wife Sangeeta and their sons Anant and Chetan Karnwal by causing injuries to them with some sharp weapons. He has further mentioned in his written report that the dead bodies are lying inside the house at different places. He requested for taking necessary action in the matter after registering the case. The First Information Report (Ex.Ka.32) was registered on the basis of that tehrir.
4. In brief the grounds of appeal are that the conviction and sentence as passed against the appellant are against the weight of evidence on record. The judgment passed by trial court is bad in the eyes of law and fact both. The finding recorded by the trial court are perverse in as such as there is no legally admissible evidence against the appellant. The sentence are too severe. DW-1 Anil Jain proprietor of the Anil Jewellers and his statement has wrongly been rejected by the Trial Judge. There are serious contradictions and improvements in prosecution story which demolishes the entire prosecution story. The present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances is not complete and do not conclusively point towards the guilt of the appellants. The prosecution papers as well as medical evidence available on record belies the prosecution story and further suggest that no witness had seen the alleged incident and entire story was cooked up by the informant as well as his pocket witnesses at a very belated stage.
5. The prosecution has produced PW-1 Surendra Kumar Karnwal, PW-2 Ram Kishan, PW-3 Smt Sangeeta, PW-4 Sharwan Kumar, PW-5 Amit Jaiswal, PW-6 Suresh, PW-7 Neeraj Jaiswal, PW-8 Vijay Pal, PW-9 Brajesh Bharti, PW-10 Clerk Constable Adesh Kumar, PW-11 Ram Veer Singh, PW-12 S.I. Braj Pal Singh, PW-13 Himanshu Singhal, PW-14 Inspector Naresh Chand Vera and PW-15 S.I. Om Prakash Yadav in support of its case.
6. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to Sessions court for trial, thereafter Sessions Court framed charges against accused Pramod Chand Pant and Basant Joshi under Sections 302/34, 394, 411 IPC.
7. PW-1 Surendra Kumar Karnwal (Complainant, brother of deceased Narendra Karnwal) has deposed briefly in examination-in-chief that on 30.05.2010 at about 6:00 P.M., he went to the house of his brother Narendra. The main gate was closed, but the side door was open. On entering, he found his brother Narendra, sister-in-law Sangeeta, and their sons Anant and Chetan lying dead in pools of blood at different places inside the house. He immediately informed family members on phone and told the neighbours. He then prepared a written report and lodged the FIR at the police station, which he proved as Ext. Ka-1. He identified the accused Pramod and Basant present in court, stating that he knew them earlier and that his brother Narendra was terrified of accused Pramod and always remained suspicious about him.
8. He further stated that the police reached the spot and prepared recovery memos of cash, jewellery, watch, inverter, battery, etc., which were given in his custody. He proved the memos as Ext. Ka-2, Ka-3, and Ka-4. Inquest reports were also prepared in his presence during the night. He proved the inquest reports of Sangeeta (Ext. Ka-5), Chetan (Ext. Ka-6), Anant (Ext. Ka-7), and Narendra (Ext. Ka-8). He specifically asserted that the murders of Narendra, Sangeeta, Chetan, and Anant were committed by accused Pramod and Basant.
9. PW-2 Ram Kishan has stated briefly in examination-in-chief that deceased Narendra Karnwal was the son of his Bua (paternal aunt). On 12.06.2010 at about 11:00 P.M., accused Pramod Chand Pant and Basant Joshi came to his house, where one salesman Adesh was also present. Both accused caught his feet, sought pardon, and on enquiry, accused Pramod confessed that in 2009 he had taken a loan of Rs. 20,000/- from Narendra and had pledged two bangles of his Bhabhi Geeta Yadav. He repaid Rs. 12,000/- in October 2009, and Narendra allowed him six months without interest. On 26.05.2010, Pramod had gone to Narendras house to take back the bangles, but Narendra asked him to come on 30th or 31st after clearing all dues. On 30.05.2010, Pramod along with Basant went to Narendras house and committed the murder of Narendra, his wife, and two sons. The witness added that out of fear, he asked the accused to leave. He and Adesh thought over the matter the whole night and disclosed it to the police the next day.
10. PW-3 Smt. Sangeeta has deposed that on the evening of 30.05.2010, her Dewar (younger brother-in-law) Narendra Karnwal, Dewarani (younger sister-in-law) Sangeeta, and their two sons were murdered. She had visited their house on 28.05.2010 and earlier on 11.05.2010. On 11.05.2010, during conversation with her Dewarani, in presence of Narendra, her Dewarani appeared anxious. On enquiry, she disclosed that one day when son Chetan did not return from school till 2:00 P.M., they searched for him but could not find him. Later, Pramod Pandit brought Chetan on scooter, saying he had found him near the school and had taken him to a friends house before bringing him home. When Narendra asked why he did not call, Pramod replied that his mobile had no balance. Her Dewarani expressed fear, saying Pramod was a dangerous person who could do anything, as he used to enquire about Chetans school routine. When asked to identify the accused in court, the witness stated: Main unki taraf dekhna bhi nahi chahti, mujhe ghabrahat hoti hai.
11. PW-4 Sharwan Kumar has deposed that he knows the accused and their relatives. He stated that Narendra Karnwal, his wife, and their children were murdered, he never imagined that such incident, could be caused by the accused persons. On 30.05.2010 at about 4:00 P.M., he went to his daughters house at Begum Bagh, and after 1015 minutes, proceeded to meet Narendra (alias Pappu). Near Narendras house gate, he saw accused Pramod and Basant going towards the flats. On asking, they replied that they were going for Pooja at Narendras house. Thinking they would take time in Pooja, and as he usually visited Narendra for financial help, he decided not to go inside and returned. On the next day, when he heard about the murders, he was shocked as the accused were on visiting terms with Narendra. He also stated that Pramods maternal uncle used to visit Narendra frequently.
12. PW-5 Amit Jaiswal has deposed that deceased Sangeeta was his sister. Through her, he came to know accused Pramod Pant (Bhanja of Harish Chandra Mishra). Pramod used to perform Pooja-Path at his house. Earlier, he had performed rituals for his marital problems and for his mothers illness, for which he was paid (including Rs.3100 for Mahamrityunjay Jaap). On 21.05.2010, he asked Pramod to do Pooja for resolving the dispute regarding his shop at Begum Bridge and paid him Rs.500. Another person was with Pramod at that time. On 30.05.2010 at about 12:00 noon, Pramod and the same person again came to his house. He identified both accused in the dock. He gave them rice, 44 coins of Rs.1, and Rs.200 in cash. They also carried a weapon wrapped in a polythene bag, saying it was for cutting pumpkin during Pooja. On that day, Pramod was wearing a red shirt and blue jeans. The next day, after attending the funeral of his sister and her family, he found Pramod present at his house for condolence, with a bandage/dressing on the first finger of his right hand. On being asked, Pramod claimed the injury was caused by glass. After that day, Pramod never met him again.
13. PW-6 Suresh has deposed that about 11 months prior to his statement, while he was at his house around 2:30 P.M., the police arrived with the two accused in a jeep near the Nala. The accused (present in the dock) searched near a tree and produced a weapon, which had blood stains. The witness identified the weapon, panni, and writing before the Court as the same recovered at that time. He identified his signatures on the recovery documents and on the panni. Weapon was proved as Material Ext. 10, Panni as Ext. 2, Writing as Ext. 3, Recovery memo as Ext. Ka-9. He confirmed that the police had completed the paperwork on the spot and obtained his signatures, which he could sign though he is not literate.
14. PW-7 Neeraj Jaiswal has deposed that he came to know about the murder of his maternal uncle Narendra Karnwal, aunt Sangeeta, and their two children through TV news and reached their house around 7:458:00 P.M. The police took fingerprints before him, pasted them on a card, and obtained his signatures. He proved LPT cards no. 24 Ka/10 to 14 Ka/10 as Ext. Ka-10 to Ka-19. The police also collected blood-stained and simple earth after breaking the floor, preparing memos: Narendra Karnwal Ext. Ka-20, Smt. Sangeeta Ext. Ka-21, Anant Ext. Ka-22, Chetan Ext. Ka-23. The clothes of all four deceased were seized, proved as Ext. Ka-24 to Ka-27. Items like watermelon, rice, etc. were also taken into possession, recovery memo proved as Ext. Ka-28. Some papers of Narendra Karnwal were seized, on which his signatures were taken, proved as Ext. Ka-29.
15. P.W. 8 Vijay Pal has deposed that he knows the accused present in the dock. About one year prior, both accused came to him introducing themselves as Pujaris of Sadar Kali Temple. They requested him to make a Dav weapon, drawing its design on the ground. He prepared the weapon and handed it over to them after receiving Rs.250. On being shown the weapon of offence in court, he identified it as Ext. 1.
16. PW-9 Brajesh Bharti (Scientific Officer, Field Unit, Meerut) has deposed that on 30.05.2010, while posted at Meerut, he visited Akshat Apartment, Begum Bagh on police information. He lifted a total of 57 finger prints: 13 from iron almirah (room of deceased Chetan), 12 from Sunmica wall almirah, 15 from wooden almirah (room of deceased Anant), 12 from glass panel of drawing room, 5 from dining table. All prints were lifted using black powder and lifting tape, pasted on LPT cards, written and signed by him and witnesses. He proved LPT Cards as Ext. Ka-10 to Ka-19. On 04.06.2010, he revisited the spot with Agra forensic team. One blood-stained fingerprint was lifted from the door panel of Anants room. Blood-stained fingerprints were also lifted from three places in the gallery outside Chetans room. He proved photographs of these as Ext. 4 to Ext. 8. He prepared proceedings of fingerprint lifting on 30.05.2010 and 04.06.2010, which were handed to the I.O. and proved as Ext. Ka-30 and Ka-31.
17. PW-10 Clerk Constable Adesh Kumar has deposed that on 30.05.2010, while posted at P.S. Lalkurti, complainant Surendra Kumar handed over a written report regarding the murder of his younger brother Narendra Karnwal, wife Sangeeta, and their two sons, committed with sharp-edged weapons by unknown persons. On this basis, a case under Section 302 IPC was registered at Crime No. 155/2010 at 18:30 hrs. He prepared the Chik report through computer, proved on record as Ext. Ka-22. An entry in G.D. No. 32 was also made at 18:30 hrs on 30.05.2010. He produced the original G.D. in court and proved its carbon copy as Ext. Ka-33.
18. P.W. 11 Ram Veer Singh has stated that on 31.05.2010 he was posted as Pharmacist in the Pyarey Lal Hospital Meerut. Dr. N.P.Sharma, Ortho Surgeon was posted with him. He has expired about one year before. He has seen Dr. N.P.Sharma, reading and writing and he is well acquainted with his writing and signature. On 31.05.2010 at about 2.45 a.m. Dr. N.P.Sharma had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Narendra son on Asha Ram resident of House No. 3 Akshat Apartment, P.S. Lalkurti, Meerut, and post mortem report was prepared, which is in the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Sharma. The witness has proved it as Ext Ka-34, This witness has further stated that according to the post-mortem report, the dead body of deceased Narendra Karnwal was sent in sealed condition through Constable Sumit Kumar and Constable Chandra Kishore. Age of the deceased was about 45 Years. This witness has proved Ex.Ka.34 to Ex.Ka.37 respectively. The following ante-mortem injures were found on his persons:-
(1) Incised wound 14 cms X 1.5 cm X bone on right side head, 5 cms. above right ear.
(2) Incised wound 17 cms X 5 cms X bone (vertebrae) on right side neck including lower part of ear up to back of neck.
According to the opinion of the doctor, death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.
On 31.05.2010 at about 3.40 a.m. post mortem examination was conducted on the dead body of Smt. Sangeeta, aged about 42 years wife of Narendra. The witness has proved post-mortem examination report as Ext. Ka-35. As per post-mortem report, the dead body of Sangeeta was brought by the constables in sealed condition and following ante-mortem injures were found on her body:-
(1) Incised wound 15 cms x 1.5 cms X bone on back of neck 6 cms form hair line, horizontal
(2) Incised wound 12 cms. X 1 cms. X bone on back of neck, 4 cms from hair line 2 cms, from injury no. 1.
(3) Incised wound 7 cms. X 1 cms on back of left side head, 2 cms from Injury no.1
(4) Incised wound 18 cms. X 3 cms X bone back, scapular. Region) upper part.
(5) Incised wound 2 cm. X 1 cm. X muscle on back of left shoulder.
(6) Incised wound 1cm. X 1.5 cm X bone on right side head 2 cms from right ear.
(7) Incised wound 11 cms X 1.5 cm. X bone on right side head 2 cms from injury no. 1.
Fracture of right temporal and occipital bone seen. According to the report, death was due to shock and haemorrhage because of ante-mortem injuries.
Post-mortem examination on the dead body of Anant Kanwal aged about 15 years son of Narendra Karnwal was conducted on 31.05.2010 at 4.20 am. The witness has proved post-mortem report as Ext. Ka-36. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person:-
(1) Incised wound 19 cms. X 2.5 cms X bone on face, both side of mid-line just below lower eye-lid.
(2) Incised wound 1cm. X 1 cm X bone in front of face 1.5 cms from injury no. 1.
(3) Incised wound 16 cms X 2 cms X bone on right side back of neck lower part of ear and face.
(4) Incised wound 5 cms X 1 cm. X bone on right side face 2 cms from injury no. 3.
(5) Incised wound 20 cms. X 2 cms X bone on left side neck front of face and right side chin.
(6) Incised wound 6 cms X 2 cms. X muscle on left side chest upper part.
(7) Incised wound 3 cms X 1 cm X muscle on left side chest upper part. 3 cms from Injury no. 6.
Fracture of maxilla on both sides, mandible at two places both facial bone and nasal bone were found.
According to the post-mortem report, death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.
Post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Chetan Karnwal was conducted on 31.05.2010 at 5.15 p.m. The witness had proved the post-mortem as Ext.Ka.37.
The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person:-
(1) Incised wound 19 cms. X 2 cms brain cavity deep on back of head, both side of mid line behind 3 cm. from left ear. Parietal and occipital bone has been cut. Brain matter protruded from the wound.
(2) Incised wound 20 cms. X 2 cms. X brain cavity deep on back of head 1 cm. below injury no. 1. Parietal and occipital bone cut. Brain matter was coming out. According to the post-mortem report, death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The death of all the four deceased was possible by sharp edged weapon on 30.05.2010 between 2.00p.m. to 6.00 p.m.
19. PW-12 S.I. Braj Lal Singh (Sub Inspector, P.S. Lalkurti, Meerut) has deposed that on 30.05.2010, he visited the place of occurrence (House No. 3, Akshat Apartment, Begum Bagh) with Inspector Incharge Naresh Chandra Verma. On direction of the S.O., he conducted inquest proceedings of the deceased Anant Karnwal and Chetan Karnwal. Inquest of Anant Karnwal commenced at 18:30 hours, completed at 20:30 hours. Inquest report proved as Ext. Ka-7. Dead body sealed in cloth, handed over to Constables Prahlad and Mahendra for post-mortem. Prepared related documents (Form No. 13, Photo Lash, Letter to R.I., Letter to C.M.O., Sample Seal) proved as Ext. Ka-38 to Ka-42. A red purse containing Rs. 210/- was recovered from his pocket and handed to the S.O. Inquest of Chetan Karnwal started at 20:30 hours. Inquest report proved as Ext. Ka-6. Related papers (Form No. 13, Challan Lash, Photo Lash, Letters to R.I. & C.M.O., Sample Seal) proved as Ext. Ka-43 to Ka-47. Body sealed in cloth and handed over to constable for post-mortem.
20. PW-13 Himanshu Singh has deposed that on 13.06.2010, while at his shop in Rithani (situated in his house), he saw a police jeep arrive at the house of Jal Prakash Dikshit. Kotwal Saheb, 45 police personnel and accused Pramod Pant were present. Police took accused Pramod Pant to his rented room on the upper storey. Recoveries from accused Pramod Pant regarding Blood-stained clothes & shoes, Two golden bangles. Recovery memos were prepared and proved as Ext. Ka-48 and Ext. Ka-49. Both memos bear signatures of witness and Ashu Dikshit. Items proved in court as Jean pant (Ext. 9), Shirt (Ext. 10), Shoes (Ext. 11). Golden bangles (Ext. 12) with panni (Ext. 13). Witness identified the articles and confirmed they were recovered from accused Pramod Pant. Witness further identified accused Pramod Pant in court.
21. PW-14 Inspector Naresh Chandra Verma (Investigating Officer) Inspector Incharge, P.S. Lalkurti on 30.05.2010. Investigation of Case Crime No. 155/2010 u/s 302 IPC was entrusted to him. The case was registered on the basis of Surendra Kumars written report (18:30 hrs), visited House No. 3, Akshat Apartment, where all four deceased (Narendra, Smt. Sangeeta, Anant, Chetan) were found. He has directed to conduct inquest proceedings of Narendra & Smt. Sangeeta by S.I. Om Prakash, Chetan & Anant by S.I. Braj Pal Singh, collected & sealed blood-stained and simple earth samples near each body (proved as Ext. Ka-20 to Ka-23). Seized blood-stained angauchha & langot (Chetan), gadda piece (Anant), small cloth pieces (Narendra), paydan (Sangeeta), collected food items (rice, vegetables, watermelon, paneer etc.), sealed with separate memos. Seized cash, jewellery, NSC, watch etc., later on was given to complainant. Took hair samples of Narendra & Smt. Sangeeta (sealed), recovered file of sale deeds, inverter & battery (given to complainant vide Supurdginama, Ext. Ka-4). Fingerprints were lifted from safes/almirahs (proved as Ext. Ka-24 to Ka-29, Ka-50). Subsequent Steps were taken and site plan was prepared (Ext. Ka-51), recorded statements of complainant, witnesses & inquest witnesses and collected post-mortem reports. Recorded statements of several witnesses (residents, relatives, shopkeepers, constables, forensic personnel etc.) on 13.06.2010, accused Pramod Chand Pant & Basant Joshi were arrested. On their pointing out, Weapon Khukhri (Dav) was recovered, memo of Blood-stained clothes & shoes (Pramod Pant) were prepared and proved as Ext. Ka-49. Two golden bangles (looted) proved as Ext. Ka-48. Site plan of recovery was also prepared (Ext. Ka-53). Thereafter Sections 394 & 411 IPC were added on 12.07.2010, case property was sent to Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala, Agra. 19.07.2010, Sent fingerprint pieces to Bureau, Lucknow on the basis of sufficiency of evidence. Submitted charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-54) against Pramod Chand Pant & Basant Joshi u/ss 302, 394, 411, 34 IPC. Material Exhibits Produced in Court and proved.
22. PW-15 S.I. Om Prakash Yadav has deposed that on 30.05.2010 he was posted as Sub Inspector at P.S. Lalkurti, Meerut. On that day, Case Crime No. 155/2010 under Section 302 IPC was registered on the written report of Surendra Kumar. He further stated that he conducted the inquest proceedings on the dead body of Narendra Karnwal, commencing at 18:50 hours and concluding at 20:05 hours. The inquest report (Ext. Ka-8) was proved by him. He also prepared the connected documents, namely Challan lash, letter to R.I., letter to C.M.O., photo lash and sample seal (Ext. Ka-60 to Ka-64). After sealing the dead body, it was handed over to Constables Sumit Kumar and Chandra Kishore for post-mortem examination. Thereafter, he conducted the inquest proceedings on the dead body of Smt. Sangeeta Karnwal, commencing at 20:10 hours and concluding at 21:20 hours. The inquest report (Ext. Ka-5) was proved by him. He also prepared the connected papers, namely Challan lash, letter to R.I., letter to C.M.O., photo lash and sample seal (Ext. Ka-55 to Ka-59). After sealing the dead body, it too was entrusted to Constables Sumit Kumar and Chandra Kishore for post-mortem examination.
23. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted written argument that the appellants are not named in First Information Report. After about 13 days of incident on the basis of confession before police and arrest name of appellant has been came. Planted recovery of (dav) recovery witness not proved the alleged recovery. Planted recovery of two bangles and cloth are not co-related with the circumstance and chain has not been completed. PW-1 is not an eye witness. PW-2 is not proved the circumstance regarding confession and that is prior to arrest on 12.06.2010 and in cross examination he has not proved his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. as exhibited, so not admissible. Last seen evidence not proved by PW-4 and chain has not been completed. No direct evidence against the appellant and the prosecution witnesses not proved without reasonable doubt and the circumstantial evidence chain has not been completed, hence in view of judgment of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1622. Forensic Laboratory report of blood stain of deceased and blood stain of cloths of appellant as alleged by prosecution has not been matched properly, so the involvement of appellant is not proved. The Story of dacoity or loot is not proved from the prosecution story itself, because all the valuable articles are not looted only two bangles are shown recovered, which is not proved. The motive or intention of committing offence has not been proved by PW-2. or any other witness and a weak piece of evidence which has not proved the cogent or reliable evidence for committing offence by appellant.
24. The First Information Report was promptly registered by the brother of the deceased Surendra Karnwal and he proved the tehrir Ex.Ka.1 before the court. He is also the witness of the memo which has been prepared by the police personnel during the course of investigation. The relevant documents have been proved by this witness as Ex.Ka.2 to Ex.Ka.4. For the purpose of registration of FIR, it requires that the prima facie case regarding the cognizable offence should be made out. From the perusal of the tehrir and the FIR, it appears that the relevant and broad facts regarding the cognizable office is clearly mentioned therein in the tehrir and FIR. We find no any kind of material contradictions in this regard. PW-1 informant Surendra Karnwal is also the witness of inquest report of the deceased persons and proved the above document before the court as Ex.Ka.5 to Ex.Ka.8 respectively. In this case four persons is said to be murdered by the appellants. The name of the four persons are Narendra Karnwal, his wife Sangeeta and two minor sons namely, Anant and Chetan Karnwal having age of 15 years and 12 years. All the four deceased were brutally murdered by a sharp weapon and it has been stated that the sharp weapon was recovered on the pointing of out of the accused persons during the course of investigation.
25. Admittedly, this case is based upon circumstantial evidence. No eye-witness is said to be available at the time of occurrence. Thus, the prosecution has duty to prove the relevant facts which are required for the circumstantial evidence case. In catena of judgments, Honble Supreme Court has laid down the essential requirements to be held guilty the accused persons in a circumstantial evidence case. The leading case in this regard is Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116. The Honble Apex Court has laid down the following principles:-
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely may be fully established,
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(5) 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.
26. Thus, any fact may be proved by way of direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence means that from which the existence of a given thing or fact is proved either by its actual production, or by the testimony or admissible declaration by someone who have perceived it. In the case of circumstantial evidence, certain facts are proved, from which the existence of a given fact is inferred. The two forms are equally admissible. Superiority of the former is that whilst it contains fallibility of assertion and perception as the source of error, the latter has, in addition, fallibility of inference. In this case the prosecution submits that essentially the events which are required for the purpose of circumstantial evidence is duly proved by the prosecution witnesses and in the specific circumstances the minor contradiction has no role. The accused persons should not be acquitted on the basis of trivial contradictions in the deposition of prosecution witnesses.
27. In the First Information Report, accused persons Pramod Chand Pant and Basant Joshi are not named. The FIR was registered in unknown, meaning thereby the informant or the family member of the deceased have no any kind of previous enmity with the accused persons to falsely implicate the accused persons in this criminal case. During the course of investigation the fact was discovered that the accused persons were involved in this case. Their involvement came out in the light on the basis of extra judicial confession made by them before the prosecution witness PW-2 Ram Kishan. As per the FIR, the incident occurred on 30.5.2010 and the accused persons admitted their guilt (extra judicial confession) before PW-2 on 12.6.2010 at the residence of Ram Kishan at about 11.00 in the night. They stated the story in brief before this witness that accused Pramod Chand Pant has kept pledge two golden bangles of his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) and in lieu of it he received Rs.20,000/- for the purpose of solemnising the marriage of his brother and he further admitted that in October, 2009 he paid Rs.12,000/- out of Rs.20,000/-. Narendra Kanwal asked accused Pramod Chand Pant to come on 30/31.5.2010 and to took away the golden bangles by paying the remaining payment. Thus, the accused Pramod Chand Pant has motive against the deceased Narendra Karnwal that without paying the remaining amount he wanted to receive the above two golden bangles of his sister-in-law and in this plan he took the help of other accused Basant Joshi. Admittedly, accused Pramod Chand Pant was previously familiar with the Narendra Karnwal and his family. He used to go there for the purpose of worship (Pooja Path). From the perusal of the relevant records, confessional statements, it appears that on the unfortunate day when the accused persons went to the flat/residence of the deceased Narendra Karnwal during the course of payment of money and receiving the golden bangles, some altercation happened inside the room of the flat of the deceased Narendra Karnwal and he was murdered. All the other three deceased, the wife of the deceased Narendra Kanrwal and two minor sons were murdered for the purpose to save themselves so that no eye-witness may be alive of this incident. During the course of cross-examination of PW-2, we find no any kind of material contraction in this regard. PW-2 Ram Kishan stated in his statement that on the next day i.e. on 13.6.2010 he went to the police station and informed the fact of extra judicial confession made by the accused persons Pramod Chand Pant and Basant Joshi and on sole basis of this fact the accused persons were inquired by the police personnel and thereafter the weapon Khukhri (Dav) and stolen golden bangles, blood stained clothes, shoes were recovered from the pointing out/possession of the accused persons.
28. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the whole case is based on the extra judicial confession which is a very weak type of evidence and no conviction can be made only on the basis on extra judicial confession. Learned AGA vehemently opposed the above argument and submits that the extra judicial confession can be the basis of conviction if it is voluntary and reliable.
29. Extrajudicial confession can only form basis of conviction if it is voluntary and person to whom confession is made should be unbiased and not inimical to the accused. Such confession should not have been obtained by coercion, promise of favour and should be voluntary in nature acknowledging the guilt. An extrajudicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extrajudicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. If voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, it can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon, if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused. There is no absolute rule that it can never be the basis of a conviction, although ordinarily an extrajudicial confession should be corroborated by some other material.
30. In Sahadevan and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403, the Honble Supreme Court held as under:-
15.4. While explaining the dimensions of the principles governing the admissibility and evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession, this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram [(2003) 8 SCC 180 stated the principle that:
19. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made.
The Court further expressed the view that:
19. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused.
15.6. Accepting the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession, the Court in Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan [(2010) 10 SCC 604 held that:
29. There is no absolute rule that an extra-judicial confession can never be the basis of a conviction, although ordinarily an extra-judicial confession should be corroborated by some other material.
31. In Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar (2023) SCC OnLine SC 259 Honble Supreme Court has held in para 5 as under:-
5. As far as extra-judicial confession is concerned, the law is well settled. Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extrajudicial confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It should be free of any inducement. The evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person would confide about a crime committed by him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith. Normally, a person would not make a confession to someone who is totally a stranger to him. Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made. As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required. However, if an extra-judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires more credibility.
32. Thus, from the above in depth analysis of the judicial prudence, it appears that the extra judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. It should be made voluntary and should be truthful and should inspire confidence. The extra judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. For an extra judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancy and inherent improbabilities. Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.
33. This case is essentially based upon the extra judicial confession made by the accused persons before PW-2. There is no material evidence/averment regarding the fact that PW-2 has induced the accused persons to confess before him. PW-2 has no any kind of previous enmity or rivalry with the accused persons Pramod Chand Pant and Basant Joshi. Though, on the basis of extra judicial confession made before the PW-2 on 12.6.2010 the accused persons were arrested on 13.6.2010 and on the basis of their disclosure statements the weapons of murder and the golden bangles, blood stained clothes, shoes were recovered from their possession. Other relevant facts are also corroborated with the extra judicial confession. We find no any kind of material discrepancies or major contradictions in the statement of PW-2 regarding the extra judicial confession.
34. PW-4 Shravan Kumar is the witness of last seen of accused persons Pramod Chand Pant and Basant Joshi. It is admitted fact that he has not seen the accused persons alongwith the deceased Narendra Karnwal or his wife or children, meaning thereby, the accused persons have not been seen alongwith the deceased persons. Both the accused persons have been seen at about 4.00 PM on the gate of the flat of the deceased. In examination-in-chief PW-4 has specifically stated that when he returned from his daughter at about 4.00 in the evening, he had intention to met deceased Narendra Karnwal but he found on the gate that both accused persons were going inside the flat. He asked him regarding their presence. Accused persons said that they are going for the purpose of worship (Pooja Path) to Narendra Karnwal (deceased). Thereafter the witness returned from there thinking that it would not be just and proper to meet Narendra Karnwal. In cross-examination, this witness also admitted this fact that the accused persons met him on the gate and they were going inside the house/flat of deceased persons. As per the medical evidence/postmortem report, the possible time of occurrence is about half day. The postmortem report was conducted on 31.5.2010 at about 2:45 AM. Considering the margin of time in both side regarding medical evidence, the time of occurrence may be near about 4.00 PM, when PW-4 had seen the accused persons at the gate of Narendra Karnwal. In examination-in-chief, PW-4 stated that he met the accused persons on the gate of the flat but he stated that they were entering towards the flat of Narendra Karnwal. In cross-examination, he stated that accused persons were going inside the house of the deceased. It appears a minor contradiction but so far as the presence of the accused persons at about 4.00 PM at the residence/flat (place of occurrence) does not appears to be doubtful. PW-4 is the witness of only entering the accused persons inside the house. He did not see when they came out but the fact has been proved on the basis of prosecution evidence that at about 6.00 PM, when informant, brother of the deceased Narendra Karnwal, reached at the residence of his brother he found that four dead bodies were lying inside the house with full of blood stained. Thus, last seen of the accused Pramod Chand Pant and Basant Joshi at the gate of the flat is also very relevant fact regarding circumstantial evidence of this case.
35. PW-5 Amit Jaiswal is also the witness of the fact that the main occupation of the accused Pramod Chand Pant was to conduct Pooja Path and he also took the help of accused Pramod Chand Pant regarding dispute of his shop and on the very unfortunate day i.e. 30.5.2010 the accused Pramod Chand Pant reached the residence of Amit Jaiswal alongwith one more person having some kind of weapon in polythene and he demanded four fist rice, 44 coins of Rs.1 and Rs.200/- in cash and he promised that worship will be completed by cutting pumpkin. During the course of examination PW-5 also identified the accused Pramod Chand Pant and other accused Basant Joshi. Thus, having weapon in the hand of accused Pramod Chand Pant at about 12.00 on 30.5.2010 (date of occurrence) and promising Amt to conduct his Pooja Path by cutting pumpkin is also another fact.
36. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the recovery of weapon on the pointing out of accused persons is not reliable, no reliable evidence has been examined regarding recovery and false recovery memo was prepared by the police personnel. Hence, the statement of PW-6 Suresh is not reliable. Learned AGA submits that independent witness of recovery has been examined by the prosecution as PW-6 Suresh. In spite of the police personnel witness Suresh is the independent and reliable witness of the recovery of weapon.
37. PW-6 Suresh has stated in his statement before the court that accused persons took out the weapon near a tree and the memo was prepared on the spot. The aforesaid place of recovery was located on the bank of the gutter but in cross-examination he has admitted that the memo was not read over to him after its preparation. From the perusal of the recovery memo of the weapon khukhri (dav), it appeares that the witness Suresh made the signatures upon the memo and proved the memo as Ex.Ka.9 and the weapon as Ex.Ka.10 before the court. He also identified the weapon during the course of examination before the court having blood stain over it. The weapon recovered from the pointing out of the accused appellants, was sold by the PW-8 Vijay Pal, who is the blacksmith and he admitted that both the accused persons came to him and he sold the aforesaid recovered weapon in consideration of Rs.250. Furthermore, he proved the weapon as material Ex.1 before the court. Though it is difficult sometimes to identify for a seller regarding the particular item but Vijay Pal stated himself to be the blacksmith. He has the knowledge about the specific weapon which he ordinarily used to prepare. No specific material contradiction is in the statement of the Vijay Pal. The recovery of weapon is relevant under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972. In Perumal Raja @ Perumal vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.863 of 2019) dated 3.1.2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 8 Honble Apex Court held as under:-
20. In Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor 10, the Privy Council held that the fact discovered embraces the place from which the physical object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given, must distinctly relate to this fact.
21. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, this Court affirmed that the fact discovered within the meaning of Section 27 of the Evidence Act must be some concrete fact to which the information directly relates. Further, the fact discovered should refer to a material/physical object and not to a pure mental fact relating to a physical object disassociated from the recovery of the physical object.
22. However, we must clarify that Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as held in these judgments, does not lay down the principle that discovery of a fact is to be equated to the object produced or found. The discovery of the fact resulting in recovery of a physical object exhibits knowledge or mental awareness of the person accused of the offence as to the existence of the physical object at the particular place. Accordingly, discovery of a fact includes the object found, the place from which it was produced and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence. To this extent, therefore, factum of discovery combines both the physical object as well as the mental consciousness of the informant accused in relation thereto. In Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra 12, elucidating on Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it has been held that the first condition imposed and I necessary for bringing the section into operation is the discovery of a fact which should be a relevant fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of an offence. The second is that the discovery of such a fact must be deposed to. A fact already known to the police will fall foul and not meet this condition. The third is that at the time of receipt of the information, the accused must be in police custody. Lastly, it is only so much of information which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered resulting in recovery of a physical object which is admissible. Rest of the information is to be excluded. The word 'distinctly' is used to limit and define the scope of the information and means 'directly', 'indubitably', 'strictly' or 'unmistakably'. Only that part of the information which is clear, immediate and a proximate cause of discovery is admissible.
38. In Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra Criminal Appeal No.739 of 2017, July 14, 2022 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596 Honble Supreme Court held regarding the conduct of the accused which is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in light of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The relevant para is extracted hereinbelow:-
48. Even while discarding the evidence in the form of discovery panchnama the conduct of the appellant herein would be relevant under Section 8 of the Act. The evidence of discovery would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 of the Act quite apart from the admissibility of the disclosure statement under Section 27, as this Court observed in A.N. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, (2005) 7 SCC 714,:
By virtue of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the conduct of the accused person is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. The evidence of the circumstance, simpliciter, that the accused pointed out to the police officer, the place where the dead body of the kidnapped boy was found and on their pointing out the body was exhumed, would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 irrespective of the fact whether the statement made by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 or not as held by this Court in Prakash Chand Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979) 3 SC 90]. Even if we hold that the disclosure statement made by the accused appellants (Ex. P14 and P15) is not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, still it is relevant under Section 8.
39. During the course of investigation 57 fingerprints from F-1 to F-57 was taken by the FSL expert PW-9 Brajesh Bharti. The above fingerprints were taken on LPT card and on the basis of comparative study it was found that one of the fingerprint which was taken, corroborated with the finger print of the accused Basant Joshi. The scientific evidence has not been discarded cogently by the defence and all the relevant documents have been verified by PW-9. During the course of investigation the tahrir was given by PW-1 Surendra Karnwal. On the basis of the written tehrir, the FIR was registered by PW-10 Adesh Kumar and the essence of the first FIR was entered into G.D. and duly proved as Ex.Ka.32 and 33 respectively. The inquest report of four deceased persons namely, Narendra Karnwal, Sangeeta, Anant and Chetan was prepared by PW-12 Braj Pal Singh. He also proved the above formal document as the Ex.Ka.43 to 47 and the other related papers as Ex.Ka.55 to 64 respectively.
40. During the course of investigation, the site plan was prepared by the investigating officer on the pointing of the informant. The blood stained and simple soil was taken from the place of occurrence. The investigating officer has collected the blood stain clothes and shoes of the accused Pramod Chand Pant and two golden bangles were recovered from the residence of accused Pramod Chand Pant which was said to be looted from the possession of the deceased persons after committing the murder but the recovery of the blood stained cloth was not from other accused Basant Joshi.
41. PW-13 Himanshu Singal proved the above fact regarding the blood stained cloth, shoes and recovery of the golden bangles. In this connection the defence has produced DW-1 Anil Jain regarding the fact that the so called looted bangles are not made of gold. In this regard, it would be just and proper to allude that the recovered bangles were made of gold or not, is not relevant fact and fact in issue in this case. The fact in issue is that whether the bangles were kept by the accused Pramod Chand Pant in the possession of deceased Narendra Karnwal by way of pledge, and that the above relevant fact is duly proved by reliable prosecution evidence. Thus, the appellant has got no any kind of benefit on the basis of statement of DW-1.
42. The investigating officer has collected the documentary and oral evidence during the course of investigation, prepared the site plan etc and on the basis of sufficiency of evidence, filed the charge-sheet before the court and the fact was duly corroborated that the four deceased persons were brutally murdered. All the formal documents have been proved by the investigating officer PW-14 Naresh Chandra Verma. He stated in his statement before the court at page no.7 that at the time of arresting of accused Pramod Chand Pant, he sustained injury in index finger of his left hand. This fact was not denied anywhere or explained in the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. At the time of arresting of accused Pramod Chand Pant, the medical examination of both accused persons were conducted, and it was found that accused Basant Joshi has not sustained any kind of injury, but three injuries were found on the body of accused Pramod Chand Pant which are as under:
1.Hard Scabbed abrasion ,5.5cmx2.0cm on back of right ear pinna, scabbed cracked and fallen off at places.
2. Scabbed 3.0cmx1.5cm on back of middle part of left ear pinna hard, scabbed cracked and fallen at places.
3. Healed scar 1.5cmx0.6cm on palmar surface of right index finger at junction of Ist and IInd metacarpophallyngeal joint, scar tissue is formed
Opinion- Duration of injuries no.1 about one week, no.3 about two weeks caused by no.1 by friction of hard blunt object for no.2 opinion cannot be given nature simple, injury no.2 simple, duration about one week caused by friction.
43. Thus, the injuries sustained on the hand of the accused Pramod Chand Pant was duly corroborated with the statement of investigating officer and PW-5. This is an additional relevant fact in this case. The appellants have got no any benefit if any kind of trivial omission/irregularity, committed on part of I.O. during the course of investigation. It has no much significance if the important and broad facts are duly proved by cogent and reliable evidence.
44. The medical evidence/postmortem report of all the deceased persons corroborate the fact that the cause of death is A.M.I. All the injuries found in the post-mortem report of deceased persons having total number of injuries are 18 (incised wound). The weapon recovered from the possession of the accused appellant is incised wound Khukhri (Dav). All the injuries are caused by sharp weapon. The post-mortem report/medical evidence corroborates this fact that all the deceased persons have been brutally murdered and most of the injuries are caused on the vital part of the deceased persons.
45. The prosecution has shown that the accused Pramod Chand Pant has sustained the injuries and as per the medical report of accused Pramod Chand Pant the so called old injury is correlated with the date of incident. If it is shown that accused sustained injuries in the course of occurrence, the prosecution has a duty to offer an explanation to satisfy the court about the circumstances under which the injuries were caused. PW-14 investigating officer has stated in his statement before the court that accused Pramod Chand Pant has sustained injuries and the statement of the PW-14 was put before the accused during the course of recording the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. but no plausible explanation was furnished by accused in this regard.
46. No any kind of previous enmity or rivalry to the deceased or the witness is available on record. Thus, the false implication in this case due to ulterior motive or malafide intention has not been shown by the accused persons/appellants, whereas the accused appellant Pramod Chand Pant has motive to commit the office in order to recover his golden bangle which was pledged before the deceased Narendra Karnwal. Motive, which is the emotion that impulse man to do a particular act may not necessarily be proportionately grave to commit grave crime. Motive often, is not discovered. It is not sound to suggest that no crime can be suggested, unless motive is proved. In some cases it may be difficult to prove motive by direct evidence while in some other cases inference from circumstances can help in discerning motive. Clear proof of motive lends additional assurance to other evidence. Absence of motive does not lead to contrary conclusion. If positive evidence is present cogent and reliable question of motive is not important but in this case the prosecution succeeded to prove motive to cause the incident as per the prosecution version.
47. It is admitted fact that accused Pramod Chand Pant is prior familiar to the deceased Narendra Karnwal and his family members. He used to go their residence for worship (pooja path). The four deceased persons were brutally murdered. The information of the incident was widely circulated in the local newspaper, media etc and normal person of locality had the knowledge about this incident but in spite of this above fact, accused persons do not went to the house of the deceased persons after the incident or appeared and present in the cremation proceedings etc. Thus, the conduct of the accused appellants in this regard appears to be doubtful.
48. The accused Pramod Chand Pant and Basant Joshi have stated in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. that they were present at their village. As per the statement of accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the resident of accused Pramod Chand Pant is Pantkhal Haldwani, District Almora (Uttarakhand) and resident of accused Basant Joshi is village bilma village District Nainital (Uttarakhand). The accused persons pleaded themselves to live at their village at the time of occurrence. The fact of alibi was not duly proved by the accused persons during trial proceeding before the trial court. If someone plead himself to be present at a place different from the place of incident the onus is of the person who plead himself to be present there. Thus, accused who plead alibi must prove it by cogent and satisfactory evidence completely excluding the possibility of presence of the accused at the seen of occurrence at the relevant time. A successful plea on alibi is sufficient to over turn the prosecution case. If however, the plea is unsuccessful the court will draw an inference that the accused was present at the seen of occurrence at the time of occurrence. Thus, the conduct of the accused persons are also relevant in this regard.
49. In Kali Ram v State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 808, the Supreme Court cautioned that the earlier observations do not affect the well-established principles of presumption of innocence and the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The observations in the decisions quoted above have been quoted with approval in State of Uttar Pradesh v Pussu AIR 1983 SC 867. Letting the guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense, growing out of the evidence. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued it is artificial. If it has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. A judge presides over a trial not merely to see that no innocent man is punished, also to see that a guilty man is punished. Both are public duties. What degree of probability amounts to proof is an exercise particular to each case. Reasonable doubt is free from a zest for abstract speculation, from over emotional response. Doubt must be actual and substantial, doubt as to guilt of the accused, arising from the evidence or from the lack of it, as opposed to vague apprehensions. In State of Uttar Pradesh v Krishna Gopal AIR 1988 SC 2154, the Supreme Court held as follows:
There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of The probability and the quantum the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the judge. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimisation of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice.
50. In this case the two accused persons Pramod Chand Pant and Basant Joshi have committed loot and murdered all four deceased persons. Thus, their separate and specific role is not clear from the prosecution evidence. When an offence is committed by more than one person by way of cooperation of one another the principle of joint liability which has been provided in Section 34 IPC applies. The principle of joint liability as stated under Section 34 IPC is a well recognized canon of criminal jurisprudence that the courts cannot distinguish between co-conspirator nor can they inquire as to part taken by each in the crime. Where a particular act is committed with the common object each and everyone become responsible for the act of each other in execution and furtherance of their common purpose; as the purpose is common so must be the responsibility. In this case it appears that no recovery of blood stain clothes, shoes and bangles was shown from the possession of other co-accused Basant Joshi and no clear motive has been proved regarding the accused Basant Joshi but both the accused persons were lastly seen by PW-2, when they were entering inside the flat/residence of the deceased persons just before the incident. The finger print of the accused Basant Joshi was corroborated from a finger print which has been taken from the place of occurrence by the forensic expert team. Considering the number, nature, intensity of injuries, nature of weapon recovered from the accused appellants during the course of investigation, it appears that the accused persons have only the intention to commit brutal murder of all the deceased persons. Thus both the accused persons should be equally liable for the charge levelled against them in light of Section 34 IPC.
51. After venturing into the facts, evidence and arguments, we have considered the power of the appellate court provided under Section 386 Cr.P.C. in the case of Gowrishankara Swamigalu Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, (2008) 14 SCC 411, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the powers to be exercised by an Appellate Court are as wide as of the trial court. The Appellate Court can review the whole evidence and all relevant circumstances to arrive at its own conclusion about the guilt or innocence of the accused, but where two views are possible on same evidence and the findings recorded by the trial court are not perverse, the appellate court should not interfere with the findings of the lower court.
52. Thus, the appellate court, firstly, to appreciate the evidence on record; and secondly, should interfere with the findings only when the view of appellate court is different from the trial court. Coupled with the observation that the finding recorded by the trial court is perverse.
53. It is also observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Mishra alias Jittu Vs. State of M.P., (2024) 2 SCC 666, that the appellate court should be slow in interfering with conviction recorded by the trial court, but where evidence on record indicates that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and that is a plausible view, different from the one expressed by the trial court, can be taken. The appellate court then should not shy away in giving benefit of doubt to the accused.
54. The judgment of conviction is also challenged on the ground that the witnesses of fact are related witnesses, whose testimony is to be considered carefully. It is a settled position of law that the testimony of witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because the witness is a relative or family member of the victim. In such cases, Court has to adopt a careful approach in analyzing the evidence and if the testimony of related witness is found credible, the accused can be convicted. In the celebrated case of Ashok Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar, (2008) 12 SCC 173, it is observed by the Supreme Court that the Court cannot lose sight of the ground realities that the members of the public are generally insensitive and reluctant to come forward to report and depose about the crime, even though it is committed in their presence. It is in this backdrop that the Supreme Court has held, not to brushed aside the testimony of the related witnesses, merely because they are interested, but a duty is cast on the court to scrutinize such evidence with greater care and caution. This judgment is also considered by the trial court. The law on the point of related witness is also dealt with by the Supreme Court in the cases of M. Nageswara Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2022) 5 SCC791, & State of Punjab Vs. Gurpreet Singh and others, (2024) 4 SCC 469, wherein, it is held that the testimony of the witness cannot be discarded merely because the witness is related.
55. Thus, on the basis of submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA, oral and documentary evidence available on record, fact and circumstances in totality, we find that in this case following chain of events are established as the FIR was promptly registered and material and broad facts regarding cognizable offence are mentioned therein. Both the accused persons have confessed before PW-2. Blood stain clothes, shoes and golden bangles were recovered from the possession/pointing out of accused Pramod Chand Pant. Khukhri (dav) which is a sharp weapon was recovered. on the pointing out of both the accused persons under a tree near gutter. Motive to receive the golden bangles which was pledged before the deceased Narendra Karnwal by the accused Pramod Chand Pant is duly proved. The medical evidence/postmortem report corroborates the fact that all the injuries are caused by a sharp weapon on the vital part of the deceased persons. One of the finger print of accused Basant Joshi was corroborated with the finger print which has been taken from the place of occurrence by the forensic expert team. The conduct and behaviour of the accused persons do not appear to be bonafide which is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Accused persons failed to prove the fact of alibi that they were not present on the spot but they were present at their village. Injuries which was found on the hand of the accused Pramod Chand Pant was not duly explained by him. No any kind of prior enmity was established against the accused persons in order to falsely implicate them in this criminal case.
56. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid observation, we are of the considered view that the prosecution evidence forms an unbroken chain. In the light of the foregoing detailed discussion, analysis of the evidence on record, and no material illegality or no factual error was found in the judgment and order of conviction dated 22.6.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No.1201 of 2010 (State of U.P. Vs. Pramod Chand Pant and another), arising out of Case Crime No.155 of 2010, under Sections 302/34, 394, 411 IPC, Police Station Lalkurti, DistrictMeerut.
57. Thus, criminal appeal nos.3449 of 2013 and 3450 of 2013 stand dismissed on merits. The conviction under Section 302/34, 394, 411 IPC is upheld and affirmed in its entirety.
58. Let trial courts record be returned and this judgment be notified to the trial court within two weeks.
(Santosh Rai,J.) (Siddharth,J.)
September 26, 2025
RA
