Uttarakhand High Court
Sat Yendra vs St At E Of Ut T Arakhand on 2 April, 2025
Re se r ve d or de r
I N TH E H I GH COURT OF UTTARAKH AN D
AT N AI N I TAL
H ON 'BLE M R. G. N AREN D AR, C.J.
H ON 'BLE M R. ASH I SH N AI TH AN I , J
IA Nos.1 of 2024 (Bail Applications)
In
CRI M I N AL APPEAL N o.4 4 2 of 2 0 2 4
Sat yendra ...Appellant
Versus
St at e of Ut t arakhand ...Respondent
Wit h
CRI M I N AL APPEAL N o.4 5 9 of 2 0 2 4
Ram adhar ...Appellant
Versus
St at e of Ut t arakhand ...Respondent
Wit h
CRI M I N AL APPEAL N o.4 6 0 of 2 0 2 4
Videshi and ot hers ...Appellant
Versus
St at e of Ut t arakhand ...Respondent
Wit h
CRI M I N AL APPEAL N o.4 7 2 of 2 0 2 4
Deenanat h & anot her ...Appellant
Versus
St at e of Ut t arakhand ...Respondent
Counsel for t he appellant s : Ms. Manisha Bhandari, Mr. R.S.
Sam m al, Mr. Pr em Kaushal, learned
counsel.
Counsel for St at e : Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned DAG.
JUD GM EN T : ( PER H ON 'BLE M R. ASH I SH N AI TH AN I , J.)
The applicants have filed these applications under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking
1
suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of
their respective criminal appeals.
2. These appeals arise from a common judgment and
order dated 31.07.2024, rendered by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Khatima, in Sessions Trial No. 65 of 2012,
whereby the appellants were convicted for offences under Sections
302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and
seven years' rigorous imprisonment respectively, along with
applicable fines.
3. In view of the common factual matrix and the shared
grounds urged in support of the prayer for bail, these applications
are being decided by this composite order.
I. Background and Sequence of Events
4. The incident relates to the unnatural death of two
young men, Rajkishore and Upendra, residents of Unchi Bagulia
village, District Udham Singh Nagar.
5. According to the prosecution, on the intervening night
of 23/24.11.2011, the deceased were lured out of their homes by
two juvenile girls, Babli and Jyoti. The victims were last seen in
their company around 10:30 to 11:00 p.m., heading towards a
drain located in a secluded area.
6. It is alleged that the applicants, along with others,
ambushed the victims at that spot, inflicted fatal injuries using
sticks, and later strangled them. The dead bodies were recovered
the next morning from a sugarcane field allegedly belonging to
one of the accused persons.
2
7. FIR No. 254 of 2011 was lodged at Police Station
Khatima under Sections 147, 148, 302, 201, and 34 IPC. The
initial investigation led to the filing of a chargesheet against
certain individuals under Sections 304 and 201 IPC.
8. Subsequently, on an application under Section 319
CrPC moved by the informant during trial, the present appellants
were summoned and made to face trial under Sections 302 and 201
IPC based on the deposition of PW-1 Shivshankar, father of one of
the deceased.
9. The trial court, after analysing the medical reports,
circumstantial evidence, and oral depositions, found the applicants
guilty and convicted them, holding that the prosecution had proved
its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
II. Grounds Urged in Support of Bail
10. The appellant-applicants have challenged their
conviction in appeal and seek bail during the pendency of the
proceedings on the following grounds:
(a) Entirely Circumstantial Case: The prosecution relied
exclusively on circumstantial evidence; no direct
eyewitness testified to the actual commission of murder.
(b) Ambiguity in Cause of Death: Medical evidence,
including post-mortem reports, does not conclusively
establish death by strangulation. Electrocution and blunt
force trauma are suggested, but no forensic confirmation
of either is forthcoming.
3
(c) Lack of Recovery of Weapon: No murder weapon or
incriminating object was recovered from or linked to the
appellants.
(d) Weak "Last Seen" Theory: The gap of
approximately six hours between the time the deceased
were last seen, and the discovery of their bodies
undermines the credibility of this theory.
(e) Uncorroborated Section 319 Summoning: The
appellants were added to the trial solely on the basis of
belated and uncorroborated statements made years after
the incident, in contravention of principles laid down in
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92.
(f) Prolonged Incarceration: The appeal is not likely to be
heard in the near future; continued custody would result
in prejudice.
III. Submissions of the State
11. The learned Deputy Advocate General, opposing the
bail pleas, submits that the trial court has rightly appreciated the
chain of circumstances and inferred guilt.
12. It is urged that the motive -- the deceased's alleged
relationships with juvenile girls related to the appellants --
combined with the fact that the bodies were recovered from land
allegedly belonging to an accused, forms a sufficient basis to
sustain the conviction.
IV. Analysis and Prima Facie Observations
13. At this interlocutory stage, the Court is not expected to
re-evaluate the evidence in its entirety. However, where liberty is
4
at stake post-conviction, a prima facie assessment becomes
essential.
14. It is noteworthy that:
(a) The learned trial court has expressly recorded that
strangulation as a cause of death was not confirmed by
medical evidence.
(b) It further noted that the cause of death of deceased
Rajkishore was excessive bleeding due to a serious
head injury sustained ante-mortem, whereas in the case
of Upendra, it was attributed to the possibility of pre-
mortem injuries and electric shock.
(c) The injuries were opined to be consistent with the
use of a hard and blunt object, and in some instances,
possibly a heated implement such as a hot iron rod.
(d) The court also observed that certain injuries could
have resulted from beating or dragging.
(e) The post-mortem reports (Exhibits A-4 and A-5)
and expert testimony reflect inconclusive findings,
including possibilities of electrocution.
(f) The so-called "last-seen" circumstance, though
relevant, is undermined by a six-hour time gap
between the last sighting and the recovery of the
bodies, as per the depositions of PW-12 and PW-13.
(g) No eyewitness, forensic link, or independent
recovery connects the appellants to the offence.
(h) The invocation of Section 319 Cr.P.C. was not
supported by any fresh or cogent material, contrary to
the law laid down in Sarojben Ashwinkumar Shah v.
State of Gujarat, (2011) 13 SCC 316.
5
15. When examined in light of the settled principles
governing circumstantial evidence, as laid down in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622),
where the Hon'ble Supreme Court mandated that the chain of
circumstances must be complete and exclude every hypothesis
consistent with innocence.
16. In State v. Mahender Singh Dahiya (2011) 3 SCC
109, which emphasised that suspicion, however strong, cannot take
the place of proof; and
17. In Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 11 SCC
724, wherein the Court held that failure to establish a consistent
and unbroken chain is fatal to the prosecution, the evidentiary
foundation in the present case appears vulnerable to serious doubt.
18. The right to appeal is a constitutional safeguard, and in
the absence of compelling reasons justifying prolonged post-
conviction detention, suspension of sentence may be warranted,
especially where the appeal raises substantial questions of fact and
law.
V. Conclusion
19. In light of the facts and arguments stated above, this
Court is of the considered view that the applicants have made out a
prima facie case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
during the pendency of the appeals.
6
ORDER
20. Accordingly, the substantive sentence imposed upon
the appellants shall remain suspended during the pendency of the
appeal, and appellants, namely, Satyendra, Videshi, Pardesi, Ajay
Kumar, Ramadhar, Deenanath and Amarnath, shall be released on
bail only upon each appellant-applicants furnishing a personal
bond of ₹25,000/- and two sureties of the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the trial court concerned.
21. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court and
the jail authorities for immediate compliance.
G. N AREN DAR, C.J.
ASH I SH N AI TH AN I , J.
Dat ed: 02.04.2025
NR/
7
[ad_1]
Source link