LexSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus DEVENDRA SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ST A TE OF UTT AR PRADESH v. DEVENDRA SINGH APRIL 13, 2004 -', B [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302, 376 and 201-Rape and murder-Evidence of witnesses-Appreciation of-Victim last seen with accused shortly before c occurrence-Accused refusing to have his sugarcane field searched-Dead body of victim recovered from the sugarcane field of accused-One of the witnesses (PW-4) aged I 6 years deposing that he saw accused throttling the deceased-Conviction by trial court-Acquittal by High Court holding that PW-4 did not disclose about his having seen the occurrence for three days, his conduct was unnatural and his evidence did not inspire confidence-Hehl, D human behaviour varies from person to person-There is no set rule of natural actioti-To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way-The witness was a young lad and according to his testimony accused was a hardened criminal and had threatened him-His E silence in not telling others for sometime cannot be said to be suspicious or unnatural-Coupled with the evidence of P W-4, evidence of other two witnesses who claimed to have seen the deceased and the accused shortly before the . occurrence is of significance-Last seen theory was a factor which was not duly considered by High Court-Accused had initially prevented search of his field, but the dead body was recovered from his field-This circumstance is )"_, F sufficient, coupled with the initial repulsion exhibited by accused, to substantiate his guilt-Evidence on record leads to inevitable conclusion that accused was responsible for rape and murder of victim-In view of patently perverse conclusions reached by High Court, its judgment is indefensible and is set aside-Conviction and sentence recorded by trial court restored-Evidence- G Apprecia_tion of-Judgment of acquittal-Setting aside of-Last seen Theory. Rana Pratap and Ors. v. State of Haryana, (1983) 3 SCC 327, relied on. .. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 617 of 1998. H 38 .. STATEOFU.P.v. DEVENDRA SINGH[PASAYAT,J.] 39 From the Judgment and Order dated 12.3 .1996 of the Allahabad High A Court in Crl. A. No. 191 of 1980. Prashant Choudhary and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the Appellants. Ranjan Mukherjee (A.C.) for the Respondent. B The following Order of the Court was delivered : ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. The State of Uttar Pradesh in this appeal questioned the legality of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court which set aside the conviction of the accused-responden~ under Sections 302, 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (in shorf C 'IPC'). The Trial Court had found the accused guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment for life for the first offence, and seven years and five years for the other two offences respectively. High Court, in appeal, reversed the. judgment of the Trial Court and directed acquittal. Background facts as projected by the prosecution are as follows: D Complainant Brij Lal (PW-I) was father of the deceased aged about IO years. On 26.12.1978, at about noon, the deceased went to the 'Kolhu' of Rajendra Singh father of the accused, in order to chew sugarcane. She was seen chewing the sugarcane at the 'Kolhu' by the witnesses. She, however, E did not return home. The complainant (PW-I) searched for her, but she could not be found. He was told by the witnesses that deceased was seen chewing sugarcane at the 'Kohlu' of the accused and later on she was seen going with the accused towards his sugarcane field. The complainant and some other witnesses went the next day to the sugarcane field of accused Devendra Singh in order to search for the deceased in the said field. The accused did p not permit the complainant to have a look at the said sugarcane field. Thereafter, the complainant took the 'pardhan' of the village with him as well as other persons and all of them searched for the deceased in the sugarcane field of the accused. During the search, some portion of the field towards the south was found to be freshly dug. The complainant and others dug the said O place and the dead body of the deceased was found buried there. The complainant asked the other persons present there to have a watch over the dead body and he himself went to the police station to lodge the report. The c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.