Utmost Precaution Needed While Finding Accused Guilty On The Basis Of Circumstantial Evidence: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the Court shall take utmost precaution in finding the accused guilty only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. With this, the Court upheld the acquittal order passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in an attempt to murder case (Section 307 IPC).

The Bench of Justice Om Prakash-VII and Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma noted that the witnesses in the instant cases were not able to recognize the accused persons and the accused persons were named in F.I.R on account of enmity.

Further, noting that it was a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Court observed that in such cases a chain of circumstances must be completed, but in the instant case, except for one ingredient that is motive, nothing else could be proved by the prosecution.

The case in brief

One Gulab moved an application on November 2, 1981, to lodge the F.I.R. with the allegation that his brother Paggal (Victim) used to drive Ikka and he (Paggal) was going on Ikka with his brother (Gulab/complainant) from Mirzapur city to his house. In total three persons were sitting on Ikka including one Amarnath.

At about 07:30 P.M., three accused persons suddenly came and threw bombs on his brother Paggal. Miscreants were seen and recognized in the headlight of the truck. Upon hearing the noise of the explosion of a bomb, witnesses Figgal and other persons reached on the spot. Accused persons escaped.

Paggal was seriously injured and a few parts of Ikka were broken. It was also alleged that there were inimical terms between the Paggal and accused persons due to some criminal cases as a result of which the accused persons inflicted bomb injuries with the intention to kill him.

Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court analyzed the facts of the case in light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and observed that if the victim had actually recognised the accused he would have told the people of the crowd that such people had attacked him.

The Court also noted that Paggal (Victim) had admitted that he did not tell the doctor as to who fired the bomb upon him. Further, the Court observed that he could not tell as to whether he got bombed first or the person sitting with him on the Ikka. There were other inconsistencies in his statement as well.

In view of these circumstances, the Court observed thus:

"The statement of the people residing in the nearby houses or the government servants doing duty at the railway gate were not recorded nor they were examined in the court. This witness (injured person/paggal) admits that he did not see the place where the accused were hiding...He admits that it was a dark night and there was no light at the scene and that he or Amanath did not have a torch. It is the contention of the prosecution that the witnesses recognized the accused persons in the light of the truck. But according to this witness, the truck was not standing on the spot but the truck was standing on the Aamghat bridge. In such a situation it would not be possible to identify the accused in the light of the truck."

In view of this, the Court came to the conclusion that there were some variations on the point that as to whether at the night of the occurrence there was dark or full moonlight. The Court noted that it was proved that it was a dark and cloudy night and there was no light of truck to recognize the accused persons.

Further, the Court observed that in the instant case, it had been proved that the witnesses had not seen and recognize the accused persons committing the offence on spot.

Therefore, the Court stressed that it could not be said that it is a case of direct evidence and therefore, the Court opined that it was a case based on circumstantial evidence, in which all the chains of the circumstances are not completed, except only one ingredient that is motive, no other ingredient such as last seen or any extra-judicial confession or any recovery had been proved.

Consequently, the HC concluded that the lower court had rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, the Court upheld the trial court's view in acquitting the accused persons.

Case title - State of U.P. v. Baij Nath And Others [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1709 of 1984]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 315

Click Here To Read/Download Order