The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday acquitted Ubhan Yadav, accused of raping and killing a minor. He had been awarded the death sentence by a Sessions court. The court gave this verdict by giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused and allowing his appeal. The bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha and Rajeev Singh passed this order while hearing a criminal appeal filed by Ubhan alias Abhai Kumar Yadav.

Ubhan was tried by the trial court and Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki, Satya Prakash Naik and was convicted under Sections 302 376 & 201 I.P.C. Ubhan challenged the August 29, 2014 order.

The counsel for the appellant has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submitted that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence from the correct perspective. The counsel said that as per the prosecution’s case, the deceased went out from her home on March 30, 2013, at 2 pm, which was categorically stated by Siyavati (mother of the deceased) and she also stated that when the deceased did not come back till 4-5 pm, they started searching for her. She also informed her husband who was working in the spinning mill and came home within half an hour and thereafter. He, along with others, started searching. Then the body of the deceased was found in the grove of Pratap Singh under the blackberry tree.

The councel also submitted that Vinay Prakash was produced before the trial Court, who categorically stated before the Court below that the incident was of March 30, 2013, and on the said date when he was coming back after watching his agricultural field in between 2- 2:30 pm, he saw that co-villager Ubhan Yadav was coming out from the grove of Pratap Singh and going towards the village from the west side of Khaliyan, and when the accused saw the witness (Vinay Prakash), he moved fast but the witness did not notice his activity and went to his home. When on the same day at 8 pm the body of the deceased was found in the grove of Pratap Singh, then he believed that the incident was caused by the appellant; he also stated in examination-in-chief that the fact was brought into the notice of family members of the deceased as well as Investigating Officer and also stated that the appellant does not have good character.

Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that trial Court also acted very negligently as the order sheet reveals that on July 30, 2013, Amicus Curiae was informed about his engagement as counsel for the accused and on the same date charges were framed, meaning thereby, no opportunity was given to the Amicus Curiae for appellant to prepare for his submissions at the stage of framing of charge.

Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the trial court observed that the appellant was aged about 35 years without any evidence, but the medico-legal report reveals that he was aged about 27 years at the time of the incident.

The Government Advocate has submitted that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence deposed before the trial Court. He also submitted that in the case, the modesty of twelve year’s old girl was outraged by the appellant, and thereafter, she was strangulated to death. He also submitted that the involvement of the appellant was found during the course of the investigation and he was arrested on April 01, 2013.
Thereafter, the accused was medically examined and some injuries were found on his genital parts which was caused due to physical relation with the deceased (minor).

The Government Advocate has also submitted that the appellant was medically examined and smegma was present on his genital part and the abrasion was also found and the color of the abrasion is bluish-black due to force penetration. He also submitted that the deceased was mentally retarded and the offense comes into the category of rarest of the rare cases as the twelve year’s old mentally retarded girl was raped and thereafter, murdered.

“The Court is conscious of the fact that in the present case 12 years old girl has been sexually assaulted and done to death by throttling, but the fact remains that whether it was the appellant who has committed the alleged crime appears to be doubtful. In such circumstances, the Court comes to the conclusion that the manner in which the prosecution tried to establish the execution of crime is doubtful”, the Court observed.

“Hence, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The incident does not appear to have happened in the manner in which the prosecution wants the Court to believe it had happened. Therefore, the appellant becomes entitled for the benefit of the doubt and the appeal deserves to be allowed”, the Court said.

Read Also: Delhi HC grants bail to sexual assault accused, cites delay in recording supplementary statement

“The appellant – Ubhan Yadav @ Abhai Kumar Yadav -is in jail. Let the appellant be released forthwith unless required in any other case. It is further directed that the appellant namely Ubhan Yadav @ Abhai Kumar Yadav shall furnish bail bond with sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in terms of the provision of Section 437-A CrPC”, the Court ordered.

The Bombay High Court recently acquitted four members of a family, convicted in 2010 in connection to a woman’s death by suicide within two months of her marriage into the family.

The division bench of Justice Sadhana S. Jadhav and Justice N.R. Borkar passed this order while hearing a criminal appeal filed by Sachin Ramchandra Teke.

The Court set aside a Sessions Court judgement dated June 29, 2012 convicting husband and other family members for offences punishable under section 498-A, 302, 304-B r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The couple got married on July 28, 2010, and resided in a joint family at Malshiras. In September 2010, two months after the marriage, Megha was found hanging to the rafter inside her bedroom. A report was then lodged by her father at the police station alleging that her daughter complained to him that she was subjected to ill treatment and harassment for not getting a gold ring for Sachin and was also subjected to starvation. About 9 witnesses were examined by the prosecution whereas the defense examined 4 witnesses.

The Counsel for the appellants submitted that there is cogent and convincing evidence to show that there was no dispute between the members of both the families over dowry or the golden ornaments. That, Megha had committed suicide just within two months of her marriage which would prima facie show she was getting married against her wish.

It is submitted that the main consideration for the Sachin to get married with Megha was her qualification as M.Sc since the Sachin himself was M.Phil and was working as a lecturer in Sinhagad College whereas Sunil, was working as a teacher in Zilla Parishad School. It is also submitted that Dr. Valsangkar has clearly established that Megha was a sensitive person. She used to be under mental stress in 2005 itself.

That, the accused cannot be held responsible for the suicide of Megha.

M.H Mhatre, Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that Megha has died in her matrimonial home and the reason for her mental depression and suicide ought to have been known to the accused persons. That, on three occasions before the incident Megha has been said to have complained to her father and brother about ill-treatment meted out to her on the ground that the family members and relatives of the accused were not honored properly at the time of marriage and that the father had not fulfilled the demand of golden ring of one tola.

The court after going to the facts of the case and examination of witnesses, observed that the medical evidence proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the cause of Megha’s death was asphyxia due to hanging and therefore, conviction for an offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code was unwarranted. The Court also took note of the statement of the neurologist with whom Megha was taking treatment, that she was under mental stress since 2005 and was a sensitive girl.

“Therefore, no case is made out for conviction under section 498A of IPC. In cases like the present one just because wife has died in her matrimonial house within two months of marriage, the entire family cannot be stigmatized as having committed offences as serious as an offence under section 302 of IPC. In absence of legally admissible evidence there cannot be moral conviction”, the Court said.

“It is true that the presumption under section 113B of Indian Evidence Act was attracted in this case as the wife had died inher matrimonial house within 7 years. However, it is a rebuttable presumption and this presumption does not absolve the prosecution from proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the accused have rebutted the presumption by examining the defence witnesses. The evidence of the defence witnesses is to be treated at par with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The surrounding circumstances also need to be taken into consideration. In the present case, it cannot be said that she has died in suspicious circumstances. It is a case of suicide within two months of marriage. The prosecution has failed to prove any ill-treatment meted out to the victim within two months of her matrimony. The offence under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not proved beyond reasonable doubt”, the Court observed.

Read Also: Kerala HC overturns 1972 judgement, says Muslim women have right to invoke extra-judicial divorce

“It prima facie appears that the deceased Megha was willing to continue her education, however, she was married hurriedly by her parents since they found a suitable match for their daughter in all aspects. However, she did not seem to be happy with the marriage and in all probabilities, in a state of stress had committed suicide. All these facts speak for themselves and the appellants/accused deserve to be acquitted”, the order reads

The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a murder convict after spending nearly 14 years in jail. The convict had been undergoing life imprisonment.

The division bench of Justice Manoj Mishra and Justice S.K. Pachori passed this judgment while hearing a criminal appeal filed by Mukesh Tiwari and others.

The appeals were filed against the order passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia, on February 28, 2009 which the appellants Indrajit Mishra, Sanjit Mishra and Mukesh Tiwari have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 452, 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

The FIR lodged by Manorama Devi is that she and her husband Pratap Shankar Mishra were sleeping in a room of their house on the intervening night of July 29-30, 2007.

Her brothers, Ajit Narayan Pathak and Lalit Narayan Pathak, were also sleeping in the courtyard at that time. At around 2 am, she woke up hearing a rattle upon entry of persons in her room.

At that time, the door was open and a lantern was lit. She saw the appellants Indrajit Mishra with a hockey stick, Sanjit Mishra with a knife and Mukesh Tiwari with a katta in their hand. Indrajit Mishra attacked her husband with a hockey stick. Her husband got up from the cot and tried to run towards the courtyard but Indrajit Mishra and Sanjit Mishra caught him at the door of the room and Mukesh Tiwari shot at point-blank range on his neck, her husband fell down after receiving firearm injury. Ajit Narayan Pathak and Lalit Narayan woke up on hearing her cries.

They tried to catch the appellants, but they fled by jumping over the boundary wall. The injured was taken to the hospital, where he died. Due to enmity between the appellants and her husband, on account of Civil and Criminal litigation as well as a family partition, her husband was killed.

The injured Pratap Shankar Mishra was brought from the spot to District Hospital Ballia. In the District Hospital, at about 3:50 a.m., he succumbed to the injuries.

The First Information Report dated July 30, 2005 was registered case under section 302 I.P.C. against the appellants at Police Station-Reoti, District Ballia, by Deo Nath Singh on the basis of a written complaint of Manorama Devi  which was scribed by Ajit Narayan Pathak. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station is 1/2 Km.

The trial Court observed that though the investigating officer mentioned the name of Udit Narayan in case diary in place of Lalit Narayan but since Manorama Devi had clearly stated that Lalit Narayan and Ajit Narayan were sleeping at her house on the night of the incident, the accused persons cannot get the benefit of the error made by the investigating officer.

Thus, by placing reliance on the testimony of Manorama Devi, the trial Court concluded that the prosecution successfully proved the charges against the appellants under Section 452, 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt and thereby convicted and sentenced the appellants as above.

The Counsel for the appellants vehemently urged that Manorama Devi and Ajit Narayan Pathak had not seen the incident. The presence of alleged eyewitnesses and at the time of the incident is highly doubtful and unbelievable because at the time of the incident Manorama Devi and Ajit Narayan Pathak were present in Village Shivpur, both of them were informed and called by the Police after the death of injured Pratap Shankar Mishra, and it is for this reason that the FIR has been lodged after 3.20 hours.

This delay is fatal to the prosecution, particularly, because the distance between the place of the incident and the Police Station is only 1/2 Km.

Counsel for the appellants further submitted that there are material contradictions/omissions in the oral testimony of Manorama Devi and Ajit Narayan Pathak with regard to their presence at the time of the incident.

Also Read: Himachal Pradesh High Court says teacher who had a child through a surrogate entitled to avail maternity leave

There is a contradiction in the testimony of C.P Kanhaiya Yadav and  S.I. Hasmat Khan in respect of the presence of eye witnesses.

Though appellants persons were alleged to have been recognized in the light of the lantern, but the lantern was not recovered by the investigating officer.

A.G.A. submitted that Manorama Devi and her cousin Ajit Narayan Pathak had recognized the appellants in the light of the lantern as well as in full moonlight and the accused persons were known to Manorama Devi and Ajit Narayan Pathak even before the incident.

On the basis of the facts and circumstances discussed above, an inference can easily be drawn that this is a case of blind murder, no one actually witnessed the incident and the FIR was lodged on the basis of guess-work and suspicion and the appellants have been implicated on account of suspicion because of the previous enmity.

“For all the reasons recorded and discussed above, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 452 IPC against the appellants Indrajit Mishra, Sanjit Mishra and Mukesh Tiwari beyond reasonable doubt. As the evidence on record does not bring home the guilt of the appellants Indrajit Mishra, Sanjit Mishra and Mukesh Tiwari, beyond the pale of doubt, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted of all the charges for which they were tried,”

-the Court said.

Also Read: Plea in Delhi HC against BCI rule barring advocates from some pro bono work

The appellants are acquitted of all the charges for which they have been tried. The appellants Indrajit Mishra, Sanjit Mishra are on bail, therefore, their personal bonds and sureties are hereby discharged.

“The appellant Mukesh Tiwari is in jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in connection with any other case. The appellants Indrajit Mishra, Sanjit Mishra and Mukesh Tiwari will fullfill the requirement of section 437-A Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the trial Court at the earliest,”

-the Court order read.