Full Judgment Text
STATE OF U.P.
v.
RAJA @ JALIL
(Criminal Appeal No. 1310-1311 of 2002)
AUGUST 28, 2008
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ)
The Order of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. Heard.
Challenge by the State of Uttar Pradesh in these appeals is to
the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court
directing acquittal of the respondent Raja @ Jalil (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘accused’). Learned Sessions Judge, Barabanki had found
the accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302,
376/511 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) and imposed death
sentence and three years respectively.
The accused filed appeal from jail and a represented appeal
through counsel. A reference was made to the High
Court under Section 366 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in
short ‘CrPC’) for confirmation of death sentence. The High Court
disposed of all the three matters by the impugned judgment. The
allegation against the accused was that he had taken a girl of about
11 years of age namely Kumari Reema, tried to commit rape on her
and killed her. According to the prosecution on 17.10.1994 at about
8 a.m. the accused requested the mother of the deceased to allow
the deceased to accompany him for harvesting paddy crop in the
fields of Naumi Lal and Ganga Ram. Since the deceased did not
return late in the evening, Sushila Devi, the mother of the deceased,
went to the house of Naumi Lal and Ganga Ram who told her that
paddy crop in the field was not even ripe for harvesting. Thereafter
Sushila Devi continued to search for her missing daughter and went
to the market, where in front of the house of one Yaseen Chikwa, she
met Jung Bahadur, Jagat Narain, Vishwanath, Ram Shankar and
others. In the meantime, Ganga Ram accompanied by the accused
arrived there. Vishwanath and Ram Shankar told Sushila Devi that
they had seen the deceased going along with the accused around 8
or 9 A.M. On hearing this, the accused started running but was
chased and apprehended. It was about 10 P.M. at that time. On
being interrogated, the accused stated that he had taken the
deceased for harvesting paddy crop in the field of Ganga Ram. After
some paddy crop was cut, he overpowered her and took her to the
field of Ram Khelawan Yadav and tried to commit rape. When the
deceased resisted, he wanted to close her mouth, the deceased bit
on his hand whereupon the accused struck Khurpa on her neck and
killed her. The accused led all these persons to the sugarcane field
of Ram Khelawan Yadav and the dead body was pointed out. He
further led to his house and handed over the blood stained Khurpa.
FIR was lodged at the police station. A case was registered. Post
mortem was conducted and 14 injuries were found.
The appellant was also medically examined after he was
apprehended by Dr. J.P. Bhargava PW5 who found seven injuries on
the body of the accused. Injury No. 3 was kept under observation
and the accused was referred to the District Hospital Barabanki for
the opinion of surgeon.
Similarly, injury Nos. 4 and 6 were also kept under observation.
After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. Since
the accused pleaded innocence, trial was held. Seven witnesses
were examined to further the prosecution version. Sushila Devi
(PW1) stated about the request made by the accused to allow the
deceased to accompany him. Learned Sessions Judge was of the
view that the case rested on circumstantial evidence brought on
record. Accordingly, the accused was found guilty.
As noted, at the outset, the accused filed two appeals and
reference was made by the trial court to the High Court for
confirmation of death sentence.
The High Court found that the prosecution version lacks
credibility. The serious injuries sustained by the accused were not
explained. The evidence of PW1 was also found to lack credence.
The High Court found that the evidence relating to extra judicial
confession on which the prosecution version rested was not reliable.
There was serious injury on the eyes of the accused. There were
also other injuries sustained by him. The High Court analysed the
evidence and taking note of the nature of injuries, came to hold that it
was possible to infer that the accused was given a thorough beating
which resulted injuries on his body.
Finding circumstance to be insufficient to fasten guilt on the
accused, the High Court directed acquittal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
circumstances highlighted by the trial court were sufficient to
conclude that the accused was guilty of the offences as charged.
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the
judgment of the High Court.
It is fairly well-settled that when a case rests on circumstantial
evidence, a complete chain of circumstances which rule out every
other possibility except guilt of the accused has to be established.
That being so, the High Court’s view was that the circumstances
were not sufficient to fasten the guilt on the accused. The High Court
has rightly noted that alleged extra judicial confession was extracted
from the accused by assaulting him severely. The injuries clearly
indicate that the accused was beaten very badly after he was
allegedly apprehended. Therefore, the findings of the High Court that
the so-called extra judicial confession was not voluntarily or natural
cannot be faulted. Additionally the evidence of mother of the
deceased was full of contradictions and inconsistencies.
Looking at from any angle, we find no merit in these appeals
which are dismissed.