Chief Justice's Court
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 801 of 2018
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Chandramool And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
This application is preferred to have leave to appeal against the judgment dated 3rd of August, 2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bansi, Siddharth Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 167 of 2014.
The argument advanced by the learned Additional Govt. Advocate is that the trial court while hearing did not accept the electronic data evidence adduced by the prosecution and further by not appreciating adequately the evidence adduced by the prosecution relating to the recovery of bricks that were used while commissioning the crime. On going through the facts unfolded in the judgment impugned we do not find any merit. Arguments advanced in brief are that the village Chaukidar Sri Ram Shankar gave information of the incident and a criminal case was lodged at police station- Pathra Bazar. As per the information given, the dead body was recovered from the side path of the canal flowing through the village. The dead body was having a deep wound to bone in front of trachea and lacerated wound on left side scalp. The autopsy made on the corpus established homicidal death of the person concerned.
Accordingly investigation was initiated for commission of offence under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. During the course of investigation accused Dilip and Smt. Rita were arrayed as accused persons and ultimately they were charged for commission of offence under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B I.P.C. The prosecution supported its case with electronic evidence mainly electronic data evidence pertaining to call details. The trial court refused to accept the evidence adduced as it was not tendered in accordance with the provisions under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 As a matter of fact no certificate given by the person managing the computer concerned was tendered in the evidence. It is well settled that the electronic data if is required to be adduced in evidence then that must be tendered in accordance with the provisions under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and in the instant case admittedly such procedure was not adopted.
In view of this we do not find any wrong with the finding arrived by the learned trial court in this regard. So far as the issue relating to recovery of brick is concerned, it is of no consequence, in view of the fact that even if it is assumed that the same was recovered at the instance of the accused person then also no material evidence connects the same with the crime in question and accordingly the evidence relating to recovery of the article said to be used while committing the offence is not sufficient to record conviction for a serious charge punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.
In view of whatever has been stated above we do not find any just reason to grant leave as prayed.
For the reasons given above, the leave application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.11.2018 Rohit
(Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)