State Of U.P vs Munesh

(b) After investigation, Kshetrapal Singh, S.I. (PW-7) arrested the accused on 14.03.2002. After filing of the charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered as Sessions Case No. 748 of 2002.

(d) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondent-accused preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 737 of 2003 before the High Court. For confirmation of death sentence of the accused, Capital Sentence Reference No.7 of 2003 was also filed which was heard along with the appeal filed by the accused. The High Court, by impugned judgment dated 16.10.2003, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-accused and acquitted him of all the charges and also rejected the Capital Sentence Reference.

7) As to the evidentiary value of eye-witnesses - PWs 2 and 3, it is not in dispute that both of them are not related to the deceased. On the other hand, they are independent eye-witnesses who actually witnessed the occurrence. Madanlal (PW-2), in his evidence has stated that Kanchhi Lal – (PW-1) father of the deceased victim, belongs to his village and his daughter by name Roshni was just 11 years old when the said incident occurred. He also stated that the accused Munesh-respondent herein too belongs to his own village. He narrated before the Court that on 05.03.2002, at 4.30 p.m. he was passing through their field leading towards his village Manna along with one more villager Suresh Chandra (PW-2) and, ultimately, when they reached near the tube well fitted in the field of Jalil Khadar in which standing wheat crop was grown, at that time, they heard shrieking sound. On hearing the same, they immediately rushed towards the said direction. On reaching the spot, they saw Roshni lying down there and, at that time, Munesh-the accused tied a noose around her neck and tightened its knot. On seeing his action, both of them asked him “what are you doing”. He further stated that after strangulating her, he ran away in the direction of south and they too followed him, but the accused could not be caught. Thereafter, they returned back to the spot and found that Roshini was lying on the ground in a naked state and the noose was around her neck. Her salwar and underwear were lying nearby her body. Immediately, they informed the same to her father PW-1. PW-2 identified Munesh-accused in the Court and asserted that it was he who committed the said act.

9) The next eye-witness relied on by the prosecution is Suresh Chandra - PW-3. In his evidence, he has stated that PW-1 belongs to his own village and at the time of the incident, his daughter was aged about 11 years. He also admitted that even the accused-Munesh belongs to their village. Like PW-2, PW-3 also mentioned that the occurrence took place on 05.03.2002, between 4.30 to 5.00 p.m. He further stated that he along with PW-2 was passing through their field and when they reached near the tube-well of Jalil Khadar, they heard shrieking sound, due to which, they rushed towards the said direction. They saw Munesh-accused has already got down Roshni, due to which, they shouted at him. In the meanwhile, the accused put around her neck a noose of her chunni (dupatta) and tightened it by pulling. Thereafter, he ran away towards the south. Like PW-2, he also chased him but the accused could not be caught. When they returned back, they saw that she was lying naked on the ground. Her salwar and underwear were lying near her body. Her vaginal area had bleeding and her hands were full of cow-dung. Thereafter, they informed the same to Kanchhi Lal – PW- 1, father of the deceased. Like PW-2, he also identified the accused in the Court. Even in the cross-examination, he asserted that when they saw her at the first instance itself, a noose was tied around her neck and the accused was holding both the ends of the said noose and was pulling it to tighten it around her neck. He denied the suggestion that in order to support the family of the deceased, he was making a false statement. Here again, the counsel pointed out certain discrepancies in the statement before the police officer and his evidence before the Court. We have carefully verified the same and we are satisfied that the alleged contradictions are trivial in nature and have not affected the case of the prosecution.

20) In the light of the acceptable materials in the form of oral and documentary evidence led in by the prosecution, particularly, the eye- witnesses PWs 2 and 3 who are independent witnesses coupled with the evidence of the doctor (PW-4), we accept the conclusion of the trial court and disagree with the conclusion of the High Court. The analysis and the ultimate conclusion of the High Court is contrary to the acceptable and reliable material placed by the prosecution and we hold that the accused has first committed the offence of rape and then murdered the deceased. We are satisfied that the prosecution has established both the charges under Sections 376 and 302 of IPC.

21) In view of the same, the conclusion arrived by the High Court is set aside. Taking note of the fact that the incident occurred in the year 2002, we feel that rigorous imprisonment for life would meet the ends of justice.

22) In view of the same, the respondent-accused is directed to surrender before the concerned authority/Court within a period of two weeks failing which the trial Judge is directed to take necessary effective steps for sending him to prison. The appeal preferred by the State is allowed.

OCTOBER 12, 2012.