Supreme Court of India
STATE OF U.P.versusRAJA @ JALIL
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 987
- Decided
- 28 August 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in acquitting the accused because the alleged extra‑judicial confession was not voluntary and the circumstantial evidence did not constitute a complete chain to exclude every possibility other than the accused’s guilt.
Summary
The State of Uttar Pradesh alleged that the accused, Raja (also known as Jalil), abducted an 11‑year‑old girl, attempted to rape her and subsequently killed her. The trial court convicted him under IPC sections 302, 376 and 511, relying on circumstantial evidence and an alleged extra‑judicial confession, and imposed the death penalty. On appeal, the Allahabad High Court acquitted the accused, holding that the confession was extracted by severe assault and was not voluntary, and that the circumstantial evidence did not form a complete, unbroken chain to exclude all other possibilities, also noting contradictions in the mother’s testimony. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the High Court’s view, finding the confession involuntary and the evidential chain insufficient, and dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the accused was released and the death sentence was set aside.
Issues considered
- When can circumstantial evidence alone establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
- Whether the extra‑judicial confession obtained after the accused was beaten was voluntary and admissible?
- Whether the chain of circumstances presented by the prosecution was sufficient to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 366
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 376, s. 511
Subjects
murderrapeattempt to commit rapecircumstantial evidenceextra‑judicial confessionvoluntarinessdeath penaltyacquittalIndian Penal CodeCriminal Procedure Code
Judgment
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 945
STATE OF U.P. A
II.
RAJA@ JALIL
(Criminal Appeal No. 1310-1311 of 2002)
AUGUST 28, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB
,·-.----{ ALAM, JJ]
Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 302,3761511 - Attempt to commit rape - Murder - C
Circumstantial evidence - Extra judicial confession stated to
have been made by accused - Conviction and death sentence
awarded by trial Court - Acquittal by High Court - HELD:
When a case rests on circumstantial evidence, a complete
chain of circumstances which rule out every other possibility D.
except guilt of accused has to be established - On facts, High
Court has rightly noted that alleged extra-judicial confession
was extracted from accused by assaulting him severely, and
the same was not voluntary or natural- Injuries clearly indicate
that he was beaten very badly after he was allegedly E
apprehended - Additionally, evidence of mother of deceased
was full of contradictions and inconsistencies - Circumstantial
evidence - Extra-judicial confession.
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
Nos. 1310-1311 of 2002 F
From the final Judgment and Order dated 6.2.2001 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
in Crl. Appeal No. 385 of 1999
Pramod Swarup, Bharat Ram and Anil Kumar Jha for the G
Appellant.
Manish Kumar (A.C.) for the Respondent.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
945 H
~
I
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R. ''
A Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. Heard.
Challenge by the State of Uttar Pradesh in these appeals
is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High
Court directing acquittal of the respondent Raja @ Jalil
(hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'). Learned Sessions
B Judge, Barabanki had found the accused guilty of offences
punishable under Sections 302, 376/511 Indian Penal Code,
1860 (in short 'IPC') and imposed death sentence and three
years respectively.
'c The accused filed appeal from jail and a represented
appeal through counsel. A reference was made to the High
Court under Section 366 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (in short 'CrPC') for confirmation of death sentence. The
High Court disposed of all the three matters by the impugned
D judgment. The allegation against the accused was that he had
taken a girl of about 11 years of age namely Kumari Reema,
tried to commit rape on her and killed her. According to the
prosecution on 17.10.1994 at about 8 a.m. the accused
requested the mother of the deceased to allow the deceased
E to accompany him for harvesting paddy crop in the fields of
Naumi Lal and Ganga Ram. Since the deceased did not return
late in the evening, Sushila Devi, the mother of the deceased,
went to the house of Naumi Lal and Ganga Ram who told her
that paddy crop in the field was not even ripe for harvesting.
F Thereafter Sushila Devi continued to search for her missing
daughter and went to the market, where in front of the house of
one Yaseen Chikwa, she met Jung Bahadur, Jagat Narain,
Vishwanath, Ram Shankar and others. In the meantime, Ganga
Ram accompanied by the accused arrived there. Vishwanath
G and Ram Shankar told Sushila Devi that they had seen the
deceased going along with the acc1Jsed around 8 or 9 A.M. On
hearing this, the accused started running but was chased and
apprehended. It was about 10 P.M. at that time. On being
interrogated, the accused stated that he had taken the
H deceased for harvesting paddy cmp in the field of Ganga Ram.
STATE OF U.P. v. RAJA@ JALIL 947
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
J
-1
After some paddy crop was cut, he overpowered her and took A
her to the field of Ram Khelawan Yadav and tried to commit
rape. When the deceased resisted, he wanted to close her
mouth, the deceased bit on his hand whereupon the accused
struck Khurpa on her neck and killed her. The accused led all
~
these persons to the sugarcane field of Ram Khelawan Yadav B
,--f and the dead body was pointed out. He further led to his house
and handed over the blood stained Khurpa. FIR was lodged at
the police station. A case was registered. Post mortem was
conducted and 14 injuries were found.
The appellant was also medically examined after he was c
apprehended by Dr. J.P. Bhargava PW5 who found seven
injuries on the body of the accused. Injury No. 3 was kept under
observation and the accused was referred to the District
Hospital Barabanki for the opinion of surgeon.
f
~
D
Similarly, injury Nos. 4 and 6 were also kept under
~
observation. After completion of the investigation, a charge
sheet was filed. Since the accused pleaded innocence, trial
was held. Seven witnesses were examined to further the
prosecution version. Sushila Devi (PW1) stated about the
request made by the accused to allow the deceased to E
accompany him. Learned Sessions Judge was of the view that
the case rested on circumstantial evidence brought on record.
Accordingly, the accused was found guilty.
As noted, at the outset, the accused filed two appeals and F
,)_
reference was made by the trial court to the High Court for
confirmation of death sentence.
The High Court found that the prosecution version lacks
i credibility. The serious injuries sustained by the accused were
4 not explained. The evidence of PW1 was also found to lack G
credence. The High Court found that the evidence relating to
extra judicial confession on which the prosecution version rested
was not reliable. There was serious injury on the eyes of the
accused. There were also other injuries sustained by him. The
High Court analysed the evidence and taking note of the nature H
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
A of injuries, came to hold that it was possible to infer that the
accused was given a thorough beating which resulted injuries
on his body.
Finding circumstance to be insufficient to fasten guilt on
the accused, the High Court directed acquittal.
B
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the ~"""'
circumstances highlighted by the trial court were sufficient to
conclude that the accused was guilty of the offences as charged.
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported
c the judgment of the High Court.
It is fairly well-settled that when a case rests on
circumstantial evidence, a complete chain of circumstances
which rule out every other possibility except guilt of the accused
has to be established.
D
That being so, the High Court's view was that the
circumstances were not sufficient to fasten the guilt on the ...-
accused. The High Court has rightly noted that alleged extra
judicial confession was extracted from the accused by assaulting
him severely. The injuries clearly indicate that the accused was
E beaten very badly after he was allegedly apprehended.
Therefore, the findings of the High Court that the so-called extra
judicial confession was not voluntarily or natural cannot be
faulted. Additionally the evidence of mother of the deceased
was full of contradictions and inconsistencies.
F
Looking at from any angle, we find no merit in these
appeals which are dismissed.
R.P. Appeals dismissed.
J.-
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search