LexMUNNA KUMAR UPADHYAYA @ MUNNA UPADHYAYA versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 611 MUNNA KUMAR UPADHYAYA @ MUNNA UPADHYAYA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 1316 of 2008) MAY 8, 2012 [A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.) A B Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302 rlw 34, 201, 411 and 435 - Murder - Of Railway Official and three members of his family C (wife, son and daughter) inside their residence (bungalow) - Almirah in deceased's bedroom broken open and cash and jewellery taken away - Dead bodies transporled out in a car which was later on doused with petrol and set on fire - Five accused - A-1 was domestic servant of the Railway Official - D A-2 is nephew of A-1 - Trial courl convicted all the accused - High Courl acquitted A-3 and A-4 but sustalhed the conviction of A-1, A-2 and A-5 - Only A-2 pursued furlher appeal before Supreme Courl - Held: To the entire occurrence, there was no eye-witness but the attendant circumstances were fully E established by the prosecution - The forensic experl as well as the neighbours and the Investigating Officers had seen the blood stained walls, the floor, having been washed with phenyl and acid, which was sticky and various incriminating items seized in presence of the witnesses after confessions of the F accused - There was no occasion for so many witnesses to falsely depose against the accused - Statement of these witnesses seen in conjunction with the circumstance that on the incident date, the accused had given different and conflicting versions to different persons (servants and G neighbours) at different times, either for not permitting their entry into the house, or claiming that the family had gone out, fully supporl the case of the prosecution - Presence of finger prints of A-2 in the house and parlicularly on the almirah in 611 H 612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A the bedroom of the deceased, remained unexplained - A/so, PW-12 (the sole surviving daughter of the Railway Official) identified gold ornaments recovered from possession of accused persons as belonging to her deceased mother - With the help of the prosecution witnesses, the presence of the B accused in the bungalow, their intention of committing such heinous crime, the manner in which the accused persons had destroyed the evidence, i.e., the car, dead bodies and blood stained cloths of the deceased and the accused themselves, from where and how they had procured the incriminating c articles which they used in the crime, like knife, petrol etc. and finally the conduct of the accused prior to and after commission of the crime were established by the prosecution - Recovery of incriminating articles, cash· and jewellery belonging to the deceased, the finger prints of the accused 0 and the false stories given by the accused to different persons who came to the bungalow of the deceased on the incident date, to ensure that none of them enter the house of the deceased was unequivocally established - Conduct of A-2 also tilts the case in favour of the prosecution - In response E to a question relating to the injuries that he had suffered, A-2 opted to make a denial - He not only failed to explain his conduct, in the manner in which every person of normal prudence would be expected to explain but even gave incorrect and false answers - Conviction of A-2 (appellant) accordingly confirmed u/ss.302 rlw 34, 201, 411 and 435 as F the chain of circumstances undoubtedly point towards his guilt. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.313 - Statement under - Purpose of - Held: Is to serve a dual purpose, firstly, to afford to the accused an opportunity to explain his conduct G and secondly to use denials of established facts as incriminating evidence against him - If an accused gives incorrect or false answers during the course of his statement uls.313 CrPC, the Court can }iraw an adverse inference against him. H MUN NA KUMAR UPADHYAYA@ MUN NA UPADHYAYA v. STATE 613 OF A.P. THR. PUB. PROSECUTOR Evidence - Information given by injured accused to doctor A in regard to circumstances leading to his injuries - Admissibility of - Held: History given to doctor by injured accused at the time of treatment would not be strictly an extra judicial confession, but would be a relevant piece of evidence. Evidence - Test identification parade - Delay in holding identification parade - Effect - Plea of accused that the test identification parade was hel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.