Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.
Munuwa @ Satish – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2224-2225 of 2010
Decided On : 26-08-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 – Murder and attempt to murder – Common intention – Life sentence – There are doubts about conduct and testimony of eye-witnesses – Significant improvements in testimony cast doubts about his presence at alleged place of occurrence of crime – There is a great amount of uncertainty about place of occurrence of crime – It is common knowledge that a place where a severe bodily injury occurs, it naturally leaves a trail of incident – It is also common for prosecution to collect proof of blood-stained earth, clothes, or other materials, from where incident would have occurred – Prosecution’s failure to explain recovery of blood on chair or place where deceased was sitting when he was fired at seven times is fatal – Non-production of blood-stained clothes is equally fatal – Prosecution has failed to make material recoveries from place of the occurrence of the crime – Prosecution has not been able to recover any weapons alleged to have been used in incident – It was incumbent upon prosecution to examine ballistic experts to prove whether gunshots came from one or different guns – Prosecution failed to examine ballistic experts or even produce empty cartridges – There are inconsistencies in two dying declarations of deceased as to motive of crime – Second dying declaration comprising far too many additions and improvements, was correctly rejected by Trial and High Court – Dubitable circumstances in which FIR was recorded, it is not safe to consider FIR as a dying declaration as well – Appellants acquitted of all charges. (Paras 13, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27 and 30)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals challenge the judgment of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 290 and 587 of 1981 dated 10.02.2010, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by Sessions Judge, Bareilly in S.T. No. 402 of 1979 dated 31.01.1981. By the said judgment, Sessions Judge, Bareilly convicted all accused under Section 302 and Section 307, each read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced them to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years, respectively.
Findings of Court:
Judgment passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 290 and 587 of 1981 dated 10.02.2010 and the judgment of Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 420 of 1979 dated 31.01.1981 are quashed and set aside.
Result : Criminal Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. These appeals challenge the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 290 and 587 of 1981 dated 10.02.2010, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Bareilly in S.T. No. 402 of 1979 dated 31.01.1981. By the said judgment, the Sessions Judge, Bareilly convicted all the accused under Section 302 and Section 307, each read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced them to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years, respectively.
2. The Prosecution Case: The case of the prosecution is that, on 24.08.1979, around 6:30 p.m. Shri Iqbal Bahadur Saxena, Principal of the Chandra Shekhar Azad Inter-College, Giani, Uttar Pradesh1 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Deceased’] since deceased was sitting with his family physician and private practitioner Dr. Asghar Ali2 [hereinafter referred to as ‘PW-6’] in the verandah outside his office, situated in the college campus. He sent his security guard Fazal Maseeh3 [hereinafter referred to as ‘PW-1’] to fetch an empty bottle of medicines from his residence, also within the college campus. As PW-1 was returning with the bottle, the three accused, Gullu @ Rajesh (A-1), Vimal Kumar @ Chunnoo (A-2), and Munuwa @ Satish (A-3), are alleged to have entered the verandah from the south, fired gunshots at the Deceased as well as at PW-6, and fled towards the north of the building. PW-6 went to his dispensary located nearby and sought the help of Mahendra Kumar, a compounder at his dispensary, to bring the Deceased who had become unconscious, to the dispensary on a cot for administering first-aid. After that, the Deceased was put on a bullock cart along with the cot to proceed to Police Station Aliganj. PW-6 is supposed to have followed on another bullock cart.
3. Upon reaching the Police Station, the Deceased lodged an FIR at 8:30 p.m. for offence under Section 307 of the IPC, a translated version of which reads as follows:
“I, Iqbal Bahadur Saxena S/o Pyare Lal Saxena (?) am the resident of Village Sarai Jatar, Ugait, District-Badaun. I am the Principal at Gaini Inter College. I was sitting in front of Giani School. Fazal and Asghar were sitting. At around 6.30 P.M. Gullu S/o Mukat, Vimal Kumar S/o Dataram, Munua S/o Chandra Sen of Gaini arrived and fired shots with the country made pistol for killing me. Asghar and I have been hit by the bullets. (I am?) witness in the case of Vimal Kumar, therefore it has been done.”
4. The statement was entered into the General Diary by the Head Constable Raghunandan Lal4 [hereinafter referred to as ‘PW-4’] and after recording the statement, PW-4 sent the Deceased to Visharatganj Railway Station on a bullock cart for boarding the train to Bareilly for treatment at the Bareilly General Hospital. Constable Sohan Lal5 [hereinafter referred to as ‘PW-8’] is said to have accompanied him. As per the statement of PW-8, the Deceased reached the railway station by 9:15 p.m. to board the train and finally reached the Bareilly General Hospital by 11:00 p.m. where Dr. J.N. Bhargava6 [hereinafter referred to as ‘PW-11’] examined him at 11:15 p.m. On the other hand, PW-6’s bullock cart reached the railway station around 10:00 p.m. by which time the train carrying the Deceased had already left. Accordingly, PW-6 boarded the 12:00 a.m. train and reached the hospital by 2:00 a.m. on the next date, i.e. 25.08.1979.
5. At the hospital, the statement of the Deceased was recorded by the Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate Shri Subhash C. Rastogi7 [hereinafter referred to as ‘PW-5’] between 11:10 a.m. to 11:20 a.m. on 25.08.1979 after getting a certificate of medical fitness from Dr. P.K. Bass8 [hereinafter referred to as ‘PW-9’]. In this statement, the Deceased recounted events leading to the attack on him, with crucial differences in motive, place of occurrence, and the presence of other persons at such site, among others. On 27.08.1979 at
In a murder case it is incumbent upon prosecution to examine ballistic experts to prove whether gunshots came from one or different guns.
Murder – Non-examination of Doctor who conducted autopsy on dead body of deceased and who prepared post-mortem report is not fatal to case of prosecution.
Dying declarations and direct eyewitness accounts provide compelling evidence for murder convictions, even in the presence of minor inconsistencies.
The court relied on oral and documentary evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302 IPC.
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
A conviction based on inconsistent dying declarations is unsafe without corroborative evidence; discrepancies create reasonable doubt undermining the prosecution's case.
In cases of multiple dying declarations, inconsistencies necessitate corroboration for conviction; the earliest declaration indicating self-immolation was preferred, creating reasonable doubt about t....
Point of Law : The appellant shall be released from jail forthwith, unless wanted in any other case, subject to compliance of the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the trial c....
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
