Where Ocular Testimony Appears To Be Suspected, Existence Or Absence Of Motive Acquires Some Significance: Allahabad HC In Murder Case
The Allahabad High Court enunciated that where the ocular testimony appears to be suspected, the existence or absence of motive acquires some significance.
The Court was deciding a criminal appeal filed by the accused challenging the judgment of the Trial Court by which he was convicted under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi observed, “Where there is direct and credible evidence, motive occupies a back seat. However, where the ocular testimony appears to be suspected the existence or absence of motive, acquires some significance. In the present case there is no direct evidence. Even presence of so called eye witnesses, is doubtful. Therefore motive assumes some importance. Appellant is said to have committed the crime because of dispute between the deceased and Kamlesh, wife of his neighbor Heera Lal.”
Amicus Curiae Ashok Kumar Tripathi, Advocates R.K. Singh, Ajay Vashistha, Noor Mohammed, and Yogesh Srivastava represented the appellant/accused while AGA represented the respondent/State.
Factual Background -
As per the prosecution story, a Tehrir was presented in respect of an incident alleged to have occurred in July 2006. The complainant alleged that he went to collect his wages and when he returned home, he saw that the appellant/accused after flinging his wife down on the ground inside the house, was inflicting blows on her head and face with a brick. His co-villagers were brothers-in-law of the accused’s father and hence, he used to visit their house frequently. The accused allegedly cause death of his wife by causing injuries on her head and face.
As people gathered on the spot, the accused allegedly disappeared from there, giving a push to the complainant. There was no animus and animosity between the accused, as well as with his family members and complainant. He had allegedly struck severely with brick on the head and face of his deceased wife on account of some abrupt wrangling over some issue. Therefore, a criminal case was registered against the accused and then he was arrested. He did not adduce any defence evidence, oral or documentary. The Trial Court convicted him and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Being aggrieved, he approached the High Court.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “Its is alleged that there is a hand pipe in the courtyard of the deceased house from where people used to take water. Renu daughter of neighbor of the complainant, Heera Lal, went to take bath on the hand pipe 2-3 days before the incident. Deceased Kunti restrained her. Renu had complained of it, in her house. Heera Lal is Phufa of Sunil and he was residing with Heera Lal for last 7-8 days, Sunil, out of ire and anguish, committed the alleged crime. However the motive attributed for committing the crime by Sunil does not inspire confidence, because firstly, there is no evidence, regarding the said motive, on record. So it is not proved. Secondly if prosecution story, regarding motive, is accepted, even then restraining Renu from taking bath, on the hand pipe would cause much ire and anguish to Heera Lal against the deceased and there is a remote possibility that it would cause such ire and anguish to prompt the appellant to commit the crime who is an out sider and on a short visit at the house of Heera Lal.”
The Court said that the prosecution could have brought Heera Lal in the witness box to establish existence of any motive towards appellant and thus, prosecution has failed to establish any motive of committing the crime to the accused/ appellant and the same renders the prosecution case doubtful.
“… the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its story that appellant had crushed the head and face of deceased Kunti Devi by brick. It renders the prosecution story wholly doubtful and untrustworthy”, it added.
Furthermore, the Court noted that there are several contradictions and discrepancies in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, which shake the very edifice of prosecution version but the same is not of much significance or material or prejudicial to appellant which could be mentioned here.
“There is no eye witnesses of the occurrence. Therefore it is a case of circumstantial evidence, which requires that there should be a complete chain of evidence pointing towards guilt of the appellant that deceased was inflicted serious injuries with brick, by the accused / appellant. Prosecution has not examined any independent witness, despite their availability and presence at the spot, to corroborate, testimonies of PW-2 Vinod Kumar and PW-3 Shukhdev. In view of non-presence of PW-2 and PW-3 on the spot at the relevant time, of occurrence witnessing the actual incident, non-examination of independent witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case”, it remarked.
The Court also added that the chain of evidence of the circumstances is not complete in toto and it conclusively, fails to establish that the appellant is the only perpetrator of dreadful crime and that the Trial Judge misevaluated and misappreciated the entire evidence in convicting and sentencing the appellant in crime.
“The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn is not fully established. Prosecution has failed to show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the appellant. Thus prosecution has miserably failed to establish the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the appellant. The learned trial court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence in right perspective and has illegally recorded the finding of conviction against the appellant which we reversed”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and discharged the accused.
Cause Title- Sunil v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:130112-DB)
