Case: State of U.P Vs. Vad Narain

S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. 1. The State of U.P. on being dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad rendered in Criminal Appeal Nos. 253 and 256 of 1979, setting aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the sentence of death imposed by the trial court, has preferred this appeal. It may also be pointed out in this connection that the reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made by the learned Sessions Judge which was numbered as Capital Sentence Case No. 7 of 1979 for the confirmation of the death sentence under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected by the High Court. 2. The respondent Ved Narain and 8 others were charged on the allegation that on March 24, 1978 at about 9.10 p.m. in the village called Saurmau P. S. Kotwali in Sultanpur they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the said unlawful assembly the respondent, Ved Narain, committed the murder of Narender Pratap Singh, the deceased herein, by stabbing with a knife and they also caused the evidence of the commission of that offence of murder to disappear with the intention of screening the offenders from legal punishment by throwing the body in a canal. On the above allegations the respondent and 8 others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and under Section 201 IPC. The trial court convicted the respondent alone under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 and sentenced the respondent to the extreme penalty of law, namely, death and also under Section 201 IPC to four years rigorous imprisonment respectively with the direction that the sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment should merge with the sentence of death. However, the trial court found the other 8 accused not guilty of the offence and acquitted them. It was only by was of challenging the conviction and sentence, the respondent preferred his Jail Appeal No. 253 of 1979 and another Appeal No. 256 of 1979 through his counsel and the reference was made as above-mentioned by the trial court. The High Court rendered its common judgment in both the appeals and the reference case which is under challenge.3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant took us through the recorded evidence and strenuously contended that the High Court has overlooked certain impelling circumstances attending the case and recorded the impugned order of acquittal which is liable to be interfered with at the hands of this Court. 4. It appears from the records that the mother of the deceased has spoken to the fact that she found her deceased son being taken out of the house by the respondent and that her deceased son at the time when he left the house took some snacks. To prove the charge the prosecution examined PWs 3 to 7 as direct witnesses. In fact the trial court itself has found that the evidence of all the so-called eyewitnesses, namely, PWs 3 to 7 is absolutely incredible. Coming to the evidence of PW 3 the trial court rejected his evidence as absolutely unworthy of credence, observing "The evidence of this PW does not inspire confidence and I have no hesitation in rejecting it." 5. PW 4s evidence was rejected as unworthy of acceptance. Coming to the testimony of PW 5, the trail court observed that his evidence does not inspire confidence. As regards the evidence of PW 6, the finding of the trial court is that PW 6 has been introduced to serve as eyewitness. Lastly as regards the evidence of PW 7, the court held thus "I am of the view that the facts and circumstances as emerge out of his evidence cast of serious doubt on his credibility and I disbelieve him altogether." 6. It may also be noteworthy that the trial court has made an aspersion against the first investigation officer which reads thus "The first I.O. in this case did not act as an intelligent police officer otherwise the real accused could not have gone with impunity. The direct evidence was introduced as a surer and safer cause for conviction, but that did not withstand scrutiny and that direct evidence was found absolutely fabricated and therefore unacceptable." * 7. Having observed thus that the evidence of PWs 3 of 7 was absolutely fabricated and unacceptable and that the first I.O. did not act as expected, the court found the respondent guilty observing thus "Luckily for the prosecution the other I.O. was there whose investigation was above board and on the basis of his investigation atleast, guilt of accused Vednarain alias Chhotkau is established." 8. The reason given by the trial court for recording the conviction has been rightly rejected by the High Court. In fact the High Court carefully analysed the circumstances appearing in this case which might have every much weighed with the trial court and has rightly held that these circumstances do not compel the High Court to arrive at a conclusion that the respondent is guilty of the offence.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]4. It appears from the records that the mother of the deceased has spoken to the fact that she found her deceased son being taken out of the house by the respondent and that her deceased son at the time when he left the house took some snacks. To prove the charge the prosecution examined PWs 3 to 7 as direct witnesses. In fact the trial court itself has found that the evidence of all theeyewitnesses, namely, PWs 3 to 7 is absolutely incredible. Coming to the evidence of PW 3 the trial court rejected his evidence as absolutely unworthy of credence,evidence of this PW does not inspire confidence and I have no hesitation in rejecting it.PW 4s evidence was rejected as unworthy of acceptance. Coming to the testimony of PW 5, the trail court observed that his evidence does not inspire confidence. As regards the evidence of PW 6, the finding of the trial court is that PW 6 has been introduced to serve as eyewitness. Lastly as regards the evidence of PW 7, the court heldam of the view that the facts and circumstances as emerge out of his evidence cast of serious doubt on his credibility and I disbelieve him altogether.It may also be noteworthy that the trial court has made an aspersion against the first investigation officer which readsfirst I.O. in this case did not act as an intelligent police officer otherwise the real accused could not have gone with impunity. The direct evidence was introduced as a surer and safer cause for conviction, but that did not withstand scrutiny and that direct evidence was found absolutely fabricated and therefore unacceptable."Having observed thus that the evidence of PWs 3 of 7 was absolutely fabricated and unacceptable and that the first I.O. did not act as expected, the court found the respondent guilty observingfor the prosecution the other I.O. was there whose investigation was above board and on the basis of his investigation atleast, guilt of accused Vednarain alias Chhotkau is established.The reason given by the trial court for recording the conviction has been rightly rejected by the High Court. In fact the High Court carefully analysed the circumstances appearing in this case which might have every much weighed with the trial court and has rightly held that these circumstances do not compel the High Court to arrive at a conclusion that the respondent is guilty of the offence