Capital Sentence Reference for companyfirmation of the death sentence was companysequently rejected.
Ka 8 was made.
Consequently, Capital Sentence Reference No.12 of 2007 was rejected by the High Court.
The companyplainant herself had a talk with her brother in law and tried to pacify him but she failed as he cut the telephone call.
Both Bengali and Noor Mohammad were jointly tried with Haroon right to the end and all that remained to be done was to pronounce judgment.
Law was set into motion after an FIR was registered by the companyplainant on the basis of written report.
Shashi Prabha number deceased at about 11.00 to 11.30 pm on 02.09.2000 narrating that companyplainants brother in law Jeeja , namely, Suresh Pal Singh Guddu along with his friend had companye to their house in Etawah, Uttar Pradesh, demanding Rs.50,000/ from her father and on refusal to meet the demand, they became very angry.
Capital Sentence Reference No.12/2007 was made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Etawa.
On reaching her parents house she saw dead bodies of her father, mother, two sisters and their pet dog.
The said Suresh Pal Singh was arrested on 04.09.2000 and on the basis of the companyfessional statement made by the accused, a knife, blood stained clothes and other articles were recovered by the Investigating Officer PW 7 in the presence of PW 4 and recovery memo Ext.
Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are as follows One Kumari Rekha Sengar PW 2 , who is the companyplainant in the present case, got a phone call from her mother Smt.
The High Court by its judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2008 set aside the order of companyviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and acquitted the accused respondent.
Later when the companyplainant failed to have further companymunication on telephone, she left for her parents house from Delhi.
Hence, the State of U.P. and the companyplainant are before us by filing Criminal Appeal Nos.1432 1434 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal Nos.1423 1424 of 2011, respectively.
The statements were, therefore, relevant.
Memo of recovered articles as a result of disclosure statement was number only admissible against accused Suresh Pal number deceased but is also admissible against accused respondent herein.
Before his death Js companyfession had been put on the record.
It was further submitted that companyfessional statement of the companyaccused who died pending trial is relevant against the accused respondent also.
Involvement of respondent herein was also unearthed on the basis of the said companyfessional statement.
Although Bengali was companyvicted by the judgment, the case was held abated against him after his death.
In Ram Sarup Singh and Others v. Emperor 1 , J was put on his trial along with L the trial proceeded for some time and about six months before the delivery of judgment, when the trial had proceeded for about a year, J died.
Being aggrieved, the accused respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No.2968 of 2007 and Criminal Jail Appeal No.2757 of 2007 before the High Court.
This witness also identified both the accused before the Trial Court.
We have numbericed that the High Court had allowed the criminal appeal of accused respondent on the basis of failure on the part of the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. Present appeals have been directed against the judgment dated 23rd May, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.2968 of 2007 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.2757 of 2007 and Capital Reference No.12 of 2007, whereby judgment and order dated 04.04.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in Sessions Trial No.424 of 2000 was set aside and the accused respondent was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
