The Allahabad High Court observed that the suspicion, however strong, cannot form the basis of convicting the accused in the absence of satisfactory proof of his guilt.
The Division Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Om Prakash Tripathi passed this order while hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by Rajpal.
The appeal is directed against the order dated February 16, 2008, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment and fine of Rs 15,000, in default of payment of fine, one year’s additional simple imprisonment.
According to the prosecution case, Ram Phal (the victim) was the father of the first informant Bablu. He had sold four bighas of his land to Rajpal (accused-appellant). Appellant did not pay any money for the land but assured the victim that he would later give his tractor, including trolley, a machine and Rs 1 lakh to him as sale consideration.
On June 29, 2001, at about 4:00 p.m the accused appellant came to the house of the victim and took him along with him saying that he would load his tractor with bricks from a nearby brick-kiln and go to Haridwar to sell the same and profit will be apportioned by them equally, as the victim also had half share in the tractor.
On July 1, 2001 at about 11:00 p.m in the night, the accused appellant again came to the informants’ house and informed him that his father had consumed excessive liquor and is gasping for breath, so he should rush and bring his father (the victim) along with him to their house.
The first informant went to the house of the accused appellant at around 2:00 p.m in the night. He found that his father Rampal (victim) was lying dead in the tractor trolley. He accordingly made a written complaint on July 2, 2001 at 7:30 a.m stating that he suspects involvement of the accused-appellant in the murder of his father. It was registered as a Crime Case under Section 302 IPC.
The investigation of the case was handed over to Sub Inspector P.K. Singh, who during the course of investigation, prepared a site plan. Sub Inspector Har Sharan Sharma completed the inquest proceedings and thereafter the body was sent for post mortem. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet under Section 302 IPC was submitted against the appellant.
The trial court framed charge of murder u/s 302 IPC against the accused-appellant on September 21, 2002.
The trial court by the order convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 IPC, aggrieved whereby, the instant appeal has been filed.
Counsel for the appellant Sukhvir Singh, assailed the judgment by contending that – (a) The appellant has been convicted on more suspicion. There was no cogent evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant.
(b) There was no direct evidence against the appellant. The prosecution tried to establish the guilt of the appellant by circumstantial evidence, but utterly failed to exclude other possible hypotheses.
(c) The prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of evidence, consequently, there are sufficient grounds for the conclusion inconsistent with the guilt of the accused.
(d) The circumstances on which the prosecution tried to establish guilt were not proved. There is no convincing evidence to establish that the accused had visited the house of the victim on the fateful day i.e June 29, 2001; that he took him along with him; that they stayed together for two days and during this period, the victim did not come in company of others; that the accused came to the victim’s house on July 1, 2001 at 11:00 p.m or any other time to inform PW-1 that his father was lying in tractor trolley at his house.
(e) The prosecution had utterly failed to prove that how the victim has received such injuries and how it was possible for the appellant to inflict such injuries; whether the injuries were inflicted at the place where tractor trolley was found parked with the body of the victim lying in it or at some other place; if it was at the said place which was in midst of village abadi, how nobody else could come to know of it.
(f) The statement of the doctor itself indicates that such injuries could be sustained by fall from the tractor. There was no evidence to indicate whether it was an accidental death or a case of homicidal death.
(g) The charge that the victim was murdered after making him drunk was not proved, as no trace of liquor was found during post mortem nor the viscera was preserved to establish the said charge.
(h) There are material contradictions in the statements of Bablu and other witnesses regarding various important facts which leads to serious suspicion about the truthfulness of his deposition. The tractor trolley was found parked on a public road, accessible to the general public, and does not rule out other possibilities being the cause of the victim’s death.
(i) The presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not get attracted and the prosecution is not relieved of its burden to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
(j) The prosecution story that appellant came to the house of the victim at 11:00 p.m in the night on July 1, 2001 to inform the family about the serious condition of victim but still they went to enquire about him after three hours i.e at 2:00 p.m in night is wholly unnatural. No person would wait for three hours after coming to know that his family member is in need of urgent medical help.
S.A Murtaza, Additional Government Advocate submitted that – (a) the trolley on which the body was lying belonged to the accused, thus the burden was upon him to furnish explanation regarding death of the victim.
(b) as per site plan, the place where the tractor trolley was found parked, was barely 30 yards from the house of the appellant. It is admitted by P.K Singh, Investigating Officer that open land in front of the house of the victim belongs to him. Therefore, the presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act would be attracted to the facts of the instant case.
(c) the trial court has rightly held that there was clear motive to eliminate the victim so that the appellant is relieved of the liability to pay sale consideration for the land purchased by him; that the appellant had committed the crime in a most gruesome manner and deserves no sympathy from this Court.
The Court said that the case is one in which there is no ocular evidence. The prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence.
The Court found that statements of Bablu on certain important aspects, is not consistent with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. According to Bablu, he noticed blood stains on the tractor trolley when he reached the place of occurence. He further stated that the dead body of his father was taken to police station by the police in his private jeep and thereafter for post mortem in the same jeep and then brought back to the village again in the same jeep. However, according to S.I, who carried out an inquest on the direction of P.K Singh, Investigating Officer, there was no blood stain on the tractor trolley or on the ground. He stated that the body was sent for post mortem directly without bringing it to the police station.
The Court thus finds that the statement of Bablu is not beyond doubt. It is not of sterling quality so as to be relied upon without hesitation at its face value. It would not be safe to rely on his sole statement in deciding the truthfulness of the prosecution story.
The Court held that,
On the aspect of the appellant being last seen in company of the victim, it has already been held that the prosecution has failed to lead convincing evidence to establish that the accused had taken away the victim from his house at 4 p.m on June 29, 2001, or came to his house again on July 1, 2001 at 11 p.m to inform that the victim was lying near his house in a precarious condition. Consequently, the theory of last seen would also not get attracted, nor the provision of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
The trial court has laid much emphasis on the fact that there is no evidence that any sale consideration was paid by the appellant to the victim for purchasing his land and it constituted the genesis of the crime. However, it has lost sight of the fact that sale deed is a registered document and the vendor (victim) had accepted therein about receipt of entire sale consideration in advance.
Second, even if it is assumed that sale consideration was not paid or was promised to be paid as set forth in the prosecution story, the murder of the victim would not wipe out the liability of the appellant. He knew very well that his son (the first informant) and wife would be left to enforce the agreement.
Thirdly, the appellant was aware that any such act on his part would land him in much greater difficulty. Had he really committed the crime, there was more likelihood of him destroying evidence relating to the crime by dumping the body at some secret place and very little possibility of himself coming to the victim’s house to inform his son and wife that they should rush, as the victim needed their help. There are several other possible hypotheses in the given situation, which the prosecution has failed to rule out. In the absence of direct evidence, the irresistible conclusion is that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellant by circumstantial evidence.
“No doubt the death took place in a most unfortunate and ghastly manner. But that itself is not sufficient. The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the person being prosecuted is guilty of the crime. The evidence on record reveals that irrespective of whether the entire sale consideration was actually paid or not, the first informant (Bablu) was not satisfied with the sale of land by his father to the accused. Consequently, when he found his father dead, he suspected involvement of the accused. This is also what he stated in the FIR. But suspicion, however strong, cannot form the basis of convicting the appellant in absence of satisfactory proof of his guilt,” the Court observed while allowing the appeal.
“The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case,” the court ordered.