Amrit Lal Another v. State of Uttarakhand

3. The appeal, initially filed through counsel Mr. Pankaj Purohit, has been pending since 2004 and has witnessed subsequent representation by multiple Amicus Curiae, including Mr. M.S. Bhandari, Mr. Vivek Shukla, and later Mr. Prateek Tripathi, appointed through the High Court Legal Services Authority. The case has also involved interlocutory proceedings concerning the claim of juvenility of appellant Amrit Lal, for which objections were called from the State during 2020–2022.

4. The case of the State arises out of an occurrence dated

23.04.2002, falling within jurisdiction of Patwari Circle Gandasu, Tehsil and District Chamoli. The investigation in the matter was undertaken by the Revenue Police. The First Information Report, however, was lodged after an unexplained delay of approximately nineteen days. The report was founded on the information supplied by Smt. Kamla Devi, the wife of one Gabru Lal, who is stated to have learnt of the incident from others and was not herself an eyewitness to the occurrence.

5. According to the case of the State, the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused persons, including Amrit Lal and others. It is alleged that the accused, acting in concert and sharing a common intention, caused the death of the deceased and subsequently disposed of the body in a remote and secluded area.

6. The dead body was later stated to have been recovered at the instance of one Dhiraj Lal (since deceased), on whose pointing out 2 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2004------------------------Amrit Lal and Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. the police effected the recovery purportedly under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Significantly, however, the prosecution did not record any formal disclosure statement of Dhiraj Lal, thereby rendering the legality and evidentiary value of the said recovery open to serious doubt.

7. The learned trial court found the chain of circumstances sufficient to establish the involvement of the present Appellants in the crime. It held that though the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the IPC, the material on record established their culpability under Section 304 Part II of the IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, coupled with concealment of evidence under Section 201 of the IPC. The court, therefore, modified the charge and imposed concurrent sentences as noted above.

8. The Appellants, aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the trial court, have preferred the present appeal assailing the same on multiple grounds. It is contended that the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, that no credible motive has been established, that there is no eyewitness account to support the charge, and that the alleged recovery is legally untenable.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

10. Learned Counsel for the Appellants, while assailing the impugned judgment, has submitted that the entire prosecution case is founded 3 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2004------------------------Amrit Lal and Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. on circumstantial evidence and not a single witness has claimed to have seen the actual occurrence.

11. It is contended that the conviction of the Appellants, rendered in the absence of direct evidence and without the establishment of a complete chain of circumstances, is manifestly erroneous in law and contrary to the settled principles governing criminal trials.

12. The learned counsel for the Appellants further submits that the State has failed to establish any discernible motive for the commission of the alleged offence. It is urged that in a case resting entirely upon circumstantial evidence, the proof of motive assumes considerable importance, and the absence thereof strikes at the very foundation of the prosecution case.

13. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge overlooked this settled legal principle and proceeded to record a conviction on mere conjectures and surmises, unsupported by any cogent or convincing evidence.

14. Learned counsel for the Appellants further submits that there was an unexplained delay of nineteen days in the lodging of the First Information Report. The information was purportedly furnished by Smt. Kamla Devi, the wife of one Gabru Lal, who was not an eyewitness but had only heard of the incident from others.

15. It is urged that such a delay, coupled with the hearsay nature of the information, renders the FIR highly doubtful and seriously 4 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2004------------------------Amrit Lal and Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. undermines the credibility of the prosecution version, as it affords ample opportunity for manipulation and embellishment.

16. It is argued by learned Counsel for the Appellants that the alleged recovery of the dead body and other articles under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be relied upon, since there was no recorded disclosure statement of the accused Dhiraj Lal (since deceased), at whose instance the recovery was purportedly made.

17. The learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, only such portion of a disclosure statement which distinctly leads to the discovery of a fact is admissible. In the absence of any such recorded statement, the entire recovery loses its evidentiary value. Consequently, the learned trial court's finding that the recovery connected the Appellants with the crime is legally unsustainable.

18. It is further contended that the State has not led any credible evidence to prove the presence of the Appellants with the deceased prior to his death. There is no witness to the “last seen” circumstance, nor any proof linking the recovered articles with the Appellants. The so-called circumstantial chain, according to the learned Counsel, is incomplete and broken at several points.

19. Learned Counsel for the Appellants further points out that the Investigating Officer failed to establish any independent corroboration of the alleged recovery or to examine material witnesses who could have confirmed the participation of the 5 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2004------------------------Amrit Lal and Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. Appellants. The witnesses examined were either hearsay or formal in nature, and their depositions do not sustain the conclusion of guilt.

20. It is also contended that the learned Sessions Judge has misapplied the doctrine of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC, since there is no evidence of any meeting of minds or preconcert among the Appellants. In the absence of any direct participation or overt act attributed individually to each Appellant, the application of Section 34 of the IPC is unwarranted.

21. It is further urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the learned trial court erred in modifying the charge from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the PC without there being any material on record indicating that the Appellants had knowledge or intention to cause such bodily injury likely to cause death.

22. According to the learned Counsel, once the charge of murder was found unproven, the Appellants were entitled to acquittal, and the learned Judge could not have substituted the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

23. The learned Counsel lastly submits it for the Appellants that Appellant No. 1, Amrit Lal, was a juvenile on the date of the occurrence. Reliance is placed on the entries in the family register, which show his date of birth as 16.01.1986, whereas the occurrence took place on 23.04.2002, making him under 17 years of age at that time. 6 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2004------------------------Amrit Lal and Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J.

24. It is argued that, despite this, the learned trial court failed to consider his juvenility, thereby rendering the conviction against him invalid. The issue of juvenility, being a question of jurisdiction, can be raised at any stage and entitles the Appellant to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

25. On the cumulative strength of the above submissions, it is prayed that the impugned judgment dated 22.07.2004 be set aside, and the Appellants be acquitted of all charges. It is further urged that the Appellants have already undergone a substantial portion of the sentence during the pendency of the appeal, and the continuation of their conviction would amount to a grave miscarriage of justice.

26. Per contra, learned State Counsel has supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and contended that the State has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the Appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

27. It is submitted that the learned trial court, after a detailed evaluation of the evidence, rightly held that though there was no direct proof of homicidal assault, the circumstances cumulatively pointed to the complicity of the Appellants.

28. The learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the recovery of the dead body and incriminating material pursuant to the statement of co-accused Dhiraj Lal was proved through independent witnesses, and the absence of a written disclosure statement does not 7 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2004------------------------Amrit Lal and Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. nullify the evidentiary value of the discovery itself. The recovery, being an essential link in the chain of circumstances, has been adequately appreciated by the learned trial court.

29. Learned State Counsel contends the conduct of Appellants, both immediately preceding and subsequent to the incident, when considered in conjunction with the disappearance of the deceased and the eventual recovery of his body from a secluded location, constitutes a chain of circumstances sufficient to connect the Appellants with the commission of the crime.

30. It is further submitted that although the prosecution witnesses are not eyewitnesses to the occurrence, their testimonies are consistent in material particulars concerning the movements of the deceased and the alleged involvement of the Appellants.

31. The learned State Counsel contends that minor inconsistencies or procedural lapses do not affect the core of the prosecution case. The delay in lodging the FIR has been satisfactorily explained, and the mere absence of an eyewitness does not render the case infirm when the circumstantial evidence forms a complete chain pointing to guilt.

32. It is further argued by the learned State counsel that the learned Sessions Judge has taken a balanced view by acquitting the Appellants of the charge under Section 302 of the IPC and convicting them under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, having regard to the nature of injuries and the surrounding circumstances. The 8 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2004------------------------Amrit Lal and Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. finding is based on a fair assessment of the evidence and does not suffer from any perversity that warrants interference on appeal.

33. As regards the plea of juvenility raised by Appellant No. 1, it is contended that the same was not substantiated before the learned trial court by any admissible documentary proof. The entry in the family register, produced belatedly, is not a conclusive document under law.

34. The State Counsel submits that this issue has been raised only at a later stage to delay the proceedings and cannot be accepted without verification by the competent authority.

35. It is thus urged that the impugned judgment is well-reasoned and supported by evidence on record, and the appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.

36. The present case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, and therefore, the well-settled principles governing such evidence require careful application. Each circumstance relied upon must be firmly proved, the circumstances so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, and they must form a complete chain leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.

37. There is admittedly no eyewitness incident dated

23.04.2002. The case of the State is founded on the alleged last-seen circumstance, the recovery of the dead body said to have been made 9 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2004------------------------Amrit Lal and Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. on the pointing out of one Dhiraj Lal (since deceased), and the conduct of the Appellants thereafter. The First Information Report was lodged after an unexplained delay of about nineteen days.

38. The informant, Kamla Devi, was not an eyewitness and had merely conveyed information said to have been received from others in the village. No convincing explanation for such a delay has been brought on record.

39. In cases resting purely on circumstantial evidence, such delay assumes significance, as it erodes the spontaneity of the report and leaves room for embellishment.

40. The State has further relied upon the recovery of the dead body, which, according to the record, was made pursuant to the alleged disclosure of Dhiraj Lal. However, no recorded disclosure statement is available on file.

41. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act admits only that portion of a statement which distinctly leads to the discovery of a fact. In the absence of any recorded statement, the legal requirement of Section 27 is not satisfied. The recovery memo by itself does not render the discovery admissible.

42. The evidence relating to the last-seen circumstance is equally infirm. No witness has testified to having seen the deceased in the company of the Appellants at or near the time of the incident. The requirement that the deceased must have been seen alive with the 10 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2004------------------------Amrit Lal and Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. accused shortly before death, to exclude the possibility of any third- party intervention, is not satisfied.

43. The Court also finds that no motive has been attributed to the Appellants. No prior enmity, dispute, or cause of provocation has been proved. While motive may not always be essential when direct evidence is present, its absence in a case that relies solely on circumstantial evidence assumes decisive importance. The conduct of the Appellants following the occurrence has also not been shown to be unnatural or inconsistent with innocence. No evidence of abscondence or concealment has been adduced.

44. The learned Sessions Judge, while disbelieving the charge of murder under Section 302 of the IPC, nonetheless convicted the Appellants under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and Section 201 of the IPC. The record, however, contains no medical or forensic evidence establishing the cause of death or nature of injury. The conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC presupposes proof that the act was done with knowledge that it was likely to cause death. In the absence of any such evidence, the substitution of charge and conviction cannot stand.

45. As regards Appellant No. 1 Amrit Lal, the family register produced in the proceedings shows his date of birth as 16.01.1986. The occurrence took place on 23.04.2002, which means he was below seventeen years of age on the date of the offence. His age was 11 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2004------------------------Amrit Lal and Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. also recorded as about sixteen years in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. The learned trial court overlooked this material aspect.

46. On an overall assessment, this Court finds that the evidence adduced by the State fails to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances consistent only with the guilt of the Appellants.

47. The delay in the FIR, the absence of any recorded disclosure, the lack of motive, and the failure to prove the last-seen circumstance cumulatively create grave doubt regarding their involvement. When two views are possible, one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence, the view favourable to the accused must prevail. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the conviction and sentence of the Appellants recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli, in Sessions Trial No. 6 of 2002, under Sections 304 Part II and 201 of the IPC, cannot be sustained. The circumstantial chain is incomplete, the recovery legally inadmissible, the FIR delayed without explanation, and there is no credible proof of motive, common intention, or participation. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 22.07.2004 are set aside. The Appellants, namely Amrit Lal, Ranjeet Ram, and Smt. Malmati Devi, are acquitted of all charges. As regards Appellant No. 1, Amrit Lal, the record indicates that he was below eighteen years of age on the date of the occurrence. The 12 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2004------------------------Amrit Lal and Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. matter shall be placed before the Juvenile Justice Board, Chamoli, for verification and recording of compliance. The appeal is allowed. Arti ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH Ashish Naithani, J.

15.10.2025 13 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2004------------------------Amrit Lal and Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J.