Back
S.RAJENDRA BABU, ARUN KUMAR
State Of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Jagdeo – Respondent
What is the approach to evaluating testimony of interested eyewitnesses in criminal cases? How should courts treat faulty investigation in evaluating eyewitness evidence?
Key Points: - Sessions Court convicted 8 accused under Sections 302/149/148/147 IPC for murdering two persons and injuring a third; High Court acquitted all on grounds of faulty investigation and doubts on eyewitnesses (!) (!) [1000078940004] - Prosecution case involved unlawful assembly of 10 accused (2 discharged) armed with guns, revolvers, spear, and lathis attacking victims' family near tube-well over land encroachment dispute [1000078940001][1000078940002][1000078940005] - Eyewitnesses PW1-Ramraj, PW2-Firangi, PW4-Sudama (injured witness, father of deceased Rajendra); their consistent testimony supported by medical evidence and prompt FIR [1000078940002][1000078940003][1000078940006] - Supreme Court held High Court erred in rejecting eyewitnesses as "interested" merely for being family members; such testimony requires caution but not outright rejection, especially with injured witness [1000078940006] - Faulty investigation or minor discrepancies (e.g., FIR timing, lighting) insufficient to acquit when strong eyewitness evidence implicates accused in ghastly crime [1000078940004][1000078940007] - Motive established as land dispute where accused encroached on victims' courtyard, leading to prior quarrels [1000078940005] - Supreme Court set aside High Court acquittal, restored Sessions Court conviction and sentences (life imprisonment under 302/149 etc.), ordered accused into custody (!) [1000078940007] (!) - Incident at 9 PM on 10-7-1978 with electric bulbs lit; victims unarmed and sleeping; accused fired shots killing Ram Lachhan and Rajendra, injuring Sudama [1000078940002]
JUDGMENT
Arun Kumar, J.-These appeals arise from a judgment of the High Court dated 24th February, 1994 acquitting all the accused persons of the charge of committing murder of Ram Lachhan and Rajendra. As a matter of fact, ten persons, namely, Bhola, Lallan, Jagdeo, Sumer, Amardeo, Babban, Shrikishun, Jagdish, Deep Chaudhary and Sheoji were charged for offences under Sections 302/149/148/147 IPC for the murder of the said two persons. Out of the ten accused, two accused, namely, Jagdish and Deep Chaudhary were discharged under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code while the remaining eight were tried. The trial court convicted all the accused persons. Accused Bhola, Lallan, Jagdeo, Sumer, Amar Deo, Babban, Shrikishun and Sheoji were each sentenced by the trial court to undergo imprisonment for life under Sections 302/147 IPC. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Accused Bhola, Lallan, Amardep, Babban and Sheoji were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each under Section 148 IPC and accused Jagdeo, Sumer and Srikishun were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment fo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
