The Allahabad High Court last week acquitted three accused who were convicted for a murder committed in 1980 [Rajesh and Others v. State]..A Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Vinod Diwakar was of the view that the prosecution was unable to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.Hence, it set aside the the 1982 decision of the Muzaffarnagar trial court that had handed down life imprisonment to the three. The Court noted that whenever doubts are created in the mind of the court, the benefit of that doubt must go in favor of accused."We are of the view that when the prosecution had not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt the conviction of the appellants would be an unsafe proposition. We are of the view that when a doubt has been created in the minds of the Court upon consideration of the entire evidence, the appeal should be allowed and the appellants had to be acquitted," the Court said..The case dates back to January 8, 1980, when one man missing complaint was filed at Muzaffarnagar police station with regard to one Ajay Kumar. During the preliminary investigation, it was discovered that Kumar had not returned home since January 6, 1980, when he left to see his friend Rajesh Kumar. It was also stated in the First Information Report (FIR) that even Rajesh Kumar could not be found. Later, the missing report was altered to an abduction case under Section 364 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).Rajesh was arrested and he led the police to the body of the Ajay Kumar. Kumar’s corpse was recovered from a room rented to another accused, Ombir, a friend of Rajesh. A slip of plastic was also found on the neck of the deceased and a cloth piece was also found stuffed inside the mouth of the deceased. Subsequently, charges of murder and destruction/ disappearance of evidence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC were also added against the accused persons.On June 30, 1982, the trial court found the accused persons guilty and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Aggrieved, the trio challenged their conviction before the High Court..The High Court noted that the recovery statement of the accused-Rajesh nowhere suggested that he indicated anything about his involvement in the concealment of the weapon. "Mere discovery cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment by the person who discovered the weapon. He could have derived knowledge of the existence of that weapon at the place through some other source also. He might have even seen somebody concealing the weapon, and, therefore, it cannot be presumed or inferred that because a person discovered the weapon, he was the person who had concealed it, least it can be presumed that he used it," the Court observed.The Court also took note of the fact that the motive for the murder was not strong. It also noted that evidence of the witnesses who had last seen the accused was also not reliable..Accordingly, the Court was of the view that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and proceeded to acquit the accused..Senior Advocate Brijesh Sahai and advocates Rahul Sharma and Sunil Vashisth, and advocates DN Wali, Bhavya Sahai, D Singhal, NN Wali, Neeraj Tomar, Om Singh Tomar, PS Pundir and Patanjali Mishra appeared for the appellants.Additional Government Advocate Amit Sinha and advocate Mayuri Mehrotra appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh..[Read Judgment]
The Allahabad High Court last week acquitted three accused who were convicted for a murder committed in 1980 [Rajesh and Others v. State]..A Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Vinod Diwakar was of the view that the prosecution was unable to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.Hence, it set aside the the 1982 decision of the Muzaffarnagar trial court that had handed down life imprisonment to the three. The Court noted that whenever doubts are created in the mind of the court, the benefit of that doubt must go in favor of accused."We are of the view that when the prosecution had not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt the conviction of the appellants would be an unsafe proposition. We are of the view that when a doubt has been created in the minds of the Court upon consideration of the entire evidence, the appeal should be allowed and the appellants had to be acquitted," the Court said..The case dates back to January 8, 1980, when one man missing complaint was filed at Muzaffarnagar police station with regard to one Ajay Kumar. During the preliminary investigation, it was discovered that Kumar had not returned home since January 6, 1980, when he left to see his friend Rajesh Kumar. It was also stated in the First Information Report (FIR) that even Rajesh Kumar could not be found. Later, the missing report was altered to an abduction case under Section 364 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).Rajesh was arrested and he led the police to the body of the Ajay Kumar. Kumar’s corpse was recovered from a room rented to another accused, Ombir, a friend of Rajesh. A slip of plastic was also found on the neck of the deceased and a cloth piece was also found stuffed inside the mouth of the deceased. Subsequently, charges of murder and destruction/ disappearance of evidence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC were also added against the accused persons.On June 30, 1982, the trial court found the accused persons guilty and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Aggrieved, the trio challenged their conviction before the High Court..The High Court noted that the recovery statement of the accused-Rajesh nowhere suggested that he indicated anything about his involvement in the concealment of the weapon. "Mere discovery cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment by the person who discovered the weapon. He could have derived knowledge of the existence of that weapon at the place through some other source also. He might have even seen somebody concealing the weapon, and, therefore, it cannot be presumed or inferred that because a person discovered the weapon, he was the person who had concealed it, least it can be presumed that he used it," the Court observed.The Court also took note of the fact that the motive for the murder was not strong. It also noted that evidence of the witnesses who had last seen the accused was also not reliable..Accordingly, the Court was of the view that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and proceeded to acquit the accused..Senior Advocate Brijesh Sahai and advocates Rahul Sharma and Sunil Vashisth, and advocates DN Wali, Bhavya Sahai, D Singhal, NN Wali, Neeraj Tomar, Om Singh Tomar, PS Pundir and Patanjali Mishra appeared for the appellants.Additional Government Advocate Amit Sinha and advocate Mayuri Mehrotra appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh..[Read Judgment]
