KAVITA GOEL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-7-45
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 04,2013

Kavita Goel Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Alok Singh, J. - (1.) PRESENT criminal revision is preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 12.06.2009, passed by Additional Session Judge/3rd Fast Track Court, Haridwar in ST No. 401/2008 State v. Sanjay Aggarwal, whereby Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar acquitted the Respondent No. 2 Sanjay Aggarwal. As per the prosecution story, on 24.01.2008 Revisionist lodged the F.I.R. in Police Station, Jwalapur, wherein she stated that as soon as the Revisionist received the information of her mother Sashibala's death on 21.01.08, she immediately reached to Jwalapur Jhadan; the scar on the deceased's neck, created a suspicion in the mind of the Revisionist, so the Revisionist requested the police for the post mortem of the deceased; the post mortem report disclosed that cause of death was due to suffocation. Later on Police submitted the charge -sheet under Section 302 IPC against Respondent No. 2 Sanjay Aggarwal.
(2.) TO prove the prosecution story, Annexures 1 to 13 were produced on record and the statements of PW1 Ajay Kumar, PW2 Kavita, PW3 Shiv Kumar, PW4 Chand Goel, PW5 Sangeeta Aggarwal, PW6 Monika Aggarwal, PW7 S.S.I. Mahender Singh, PW8 Mukesh Aggarwal were examined. Learned Additional Session Judge was pleased to observe that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution side, as the case is based on circumstantial evidence and not on the eye -witness. In the case based upon circumstantial evidence court must notice: - 1. Leading Circumstances and related circumstances ought to be proved completely, it cannot be left merely on possibilities. 2. Proved Evidence must only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of accused. 3. Circumstances must be certain in nature. 4. Apart from proved hypothesis all other possible hypothesis can be separated and this evidence in itself is in such a continuation, that no basis is left consistent with the innocence of accused. 5. From the evidence it must be featured that seeing all human possibilities the act is done by the accused. Apart from this intention is to be proved.
(3.) LEARNED Additional Session Judge was further pleased to observe that PW1 Ajay Kumar, PW3 Shiv Kumar, PW4 Srichand Goel, PW5 Sangeeta Aggarwal, PW6 Monica Aggarwal, PW8 Mukesh Aggarwal turned hostile and in their cross -examination stated that they have not given any statement under Section 161 and have no idea how police has recorded such statements.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.