Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., S. Ravindra Bhat, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 946-947 of 2019 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 1030-1031/2019 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 1046-1047/2019 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 1269-1270/2019 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 1804-1805/2019 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 1980-1981/2019 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 1279-1280/2019 with SLP (Crl) No. 10742/2019 with W.P. (Crl.) No. 57/2022
Decided On : 04-11-2022
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149 – Murder of five persons – Attempt to murder – Common object of unlawful assembly – Life imprisonment awarded by High Court, reversing Judgment of acquittal passed by Trial Court – Finding of Trial Court that motive suggested by prosecution is insufficient for commission of murder of five persons is an inappropriate measure – Conclusion of Trial Court that case of prosecution fumbles as it failed to prove motive is incorrect – There is clear and categorical finding of Trial Court itself about place of occurrence – Trial Court has taken super-technical approach in doubting timing of lodging of FIR for arriving at erroneous conclusion FIR and Tehreer are ante-timed – There are compelling and substantial reasons for High Court to interfere with findings and conclusions of Trial Court – In a situation like this, when there is a group attack which lasted for only a few minutes, it is unreasonable to expect an eye-witness to recount each fact in mathematical detail – Prosecution has successfully established presence of eye-witness at scene of offence. (Paras 81, 86, 89, 101, 115 and 129)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 173 and 293(4) – Murder of five persons – Attempt to murder – Common object of unlawful assembly – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – Defective investigation by investigating authorities by itself does vitiate case of prosecution when there are credible eye-witness testimonies as well as other compelling pieces of evidence – High Court has examined the issue from all perspectives and in great detail before reversing decision of Trial Court – Decision of High Court is unexceptionable – Clear, consistent and categorical evidence adduced by prosecution to prove recovery of weapon, bullets as well as arrests could not have been ignored by Trial Court – There are credible ocular witnesses whose statements are corroborated by other contemporaneous evidence, certain minor variations, such as non-recovery of blood-stained clothes, certain other weapons etc. will not be fatal to case of prosecution – Ballistic report has come from office of Assistant Director bearing his seal and having considered the same in context of Section 293(4), Cr.P.C. – Judgment passed by High Court upheld. (Paras 140, 147, 155, 161, 164, 171, 174, 175 and 176)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Power of appellate court of reviewing evidence is wide – Appellate court can reappreciate entire evidence on record – It can review trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law – However circumspect and cautious approach of High Court may be in dealing with appeals against acquittals, it is entitled to reach its own conclusions upon evidence adduced by prosecution in respect of guilt or innocence of accused. (Paras 74, 75 and 76)
(D) Criminal Law – Motive – Evidentiary value – Sufficiency or insufficiency of motive does not have direct bearing on actual evidence against accused, particularly when prosecution relies on direct evidence of injured eyewitnesses – Motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing evidence but if evidence is clear and unambiguous and circumstances prove guilt of accused, same is not weakened even if motive is not a very strong one. (Paras 82, 83, 84 and 85)
Facts of the case:
Present Criminal Appeals are by seven accused convicted and sentenced to life by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for the murder of five persons. The deceased belonged to or were associated with the same family; two of them were brothers, the third was their minor son and the other two were their close family friends. There is also a Special Leave Petition filed by the informant (PW-1), who is the sole surviving brother in the family, praying for enhancement of the sentence from life to death and also a Writ Petition seeking transfer of accused no. 5 to a jail outside Uttar Pradesh for serving out sentence in lieu of his influence in the State.
Findings of Court:
In view of the fact that the ballistic report has come from the office of the Assistant Director bearing his seal and having considered the same in the context of Section 293(4) Cr.P.C., Trial Court committed a serious error in rejecting the ballistic report and it was necessary and compelling for the High Court to reverse the finding of the Trial Court on this count also.
Result : Criminal Appeals and Writ Petition dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized with references:
The court emphasized that in cases involving group attacks lasting only a few minutes, it is unreasonable to expect witnesses to recount every detail precisely, especially in a chaotic situation (!) (!) .
Defective investigation alone does not automatically vitiate the prosecution case if there are credible eyewitness testimonies and other supporting evidence (!) (!) .
The presence or absence of motive is not always determinative, especially when direct evidence from injured eyewitnesses is strong and credible; motive is a relevant but not a decisive factor (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court found that the place of the incident was established and not disputed, with findings supported by the evidence and site maps (!) (!) (!) .
Discrepancies in the timing of the lodging of the FIR, the content of the tehreer, and the medical discharge timing were considered explainable and not fatal to the prosecution’s case (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence of injured eyewitnesses, particularly PW-1 and PW-2, was held to be credible despite minor inconsistencies. Their testimonies were supported by medical and documentary evidence, and their presence at the scene was affirmed (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The technical discrepancies in the recovery of weapons, such as the bore size of rifles, were clarified and found to be based on measurement systems that are compatible, thus not invalidating the evidence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The ballistic report, which initially was challenged on procedural grounds, was ultimately deemed admissible and reliable when properly linked to the evidence, and its findings supported the case against the accused (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The existence of a motive, though considered weak by the trial court, was ultimately deemed irrelevant given the strength of direct eyewitness testimony and the nature of the evidence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court upheld that the place and time of the incident were established through credible evidence, and the technical analysis of evidence such as bullet holes and injuries aligned with the eyewitness accounts (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The argument that the accused were not part of an unlawful assembly or that there was no common object was rejected. The evidence demonstrated that the accused acted with a shared purpose, and the circumstances supported the inference of a common object (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The arrests and recoveries, including weapons and the railway card, were found to be supported by consistent and credible evidence, and the technical details, such as the bore size of rifles, were clarified and validated (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the challenges based on procedural irregularities or alleged investigation flaws, emphasizing that such defects do not automatically lead to acquittal if credible evidence exists (!) (!) (!) .
The appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court’s acquittal due to the presence of substantial and compelling reasons, including errors in the trial court’s analysis and findings (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence, including eyewitness testimonies, medical reports, forensic analysis, and recoveries, collectively established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you require a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
JUDGMENT :
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
1. These Criminal Appeals are by seven accused convicted and sentenced to life by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for the murder of five persons. The deceased belonged to or were associated with the same family; two of them were brothers, the third was their minor son and the other two were their close family friends. Apart from these criminal appeals, there is also a Special Leave Petition filed by the informant (PW-1), who is the sole surviving brother in the family, praying for enhancement of the sentence from life to death and also a Writ Petition seeking transfer of accused no. 5 to a jail outside Uttar Pradesh for serving out the sentence in lieu of his influence in the State.
2.1 The judgment of the High Court was rendered in an appeal against acquittal of all the accused by the Trial Court1[Court of the Upper Sessions Judge, Hamirpur; ST No. 145/2000, 146/2000 and 147/2000 dated 15.07.2002]. The High Court by its judgment2[In Government Appeal No. 5123/2002 and Criminal Revision No. 1548/2002 dated 19.04.2019] impugned herein reversed the findings of the Trial Court and convicted all the accused for the offences under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603[hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’], and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The details of the conviction and sentences are as under.
2.2 All these accused were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each, in default to undergo six months additional simple imprisonment. The accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 148 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of six months. All the accused were sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 read with 149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment.
2.3 The acquittal of Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel (A5) under Sections 379 and 404 IPC by the Trial Court was upheld. Further, the acquittal of accused Sahab Singh (A8) for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 19594[hereinafter referred to as the ‘Arms Act’], and the acquittal of accused Ashok Singh Chandel, (A5) for an offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act was also confirmed by the High Court without any variation. With these findings, the Criminal Appeal of the State and the Criminal Revision of the informant (PW-1) were substantially allowed.
3. Challenging the judgment of the High Court, the present criminal appeals are filed by the accused Raghuvir Singh (A1) in Crl. A Nos. 1046- 1047/2019, Ashutosh Singh @ Dabbu (A2) in Crl. A. Nos. 1030-1031/2019, Uttam Singh (A3) and Pradeep Singh (A4) in Crl. A Nos. 1269-1270/2019, Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel (A5) in Crl. A Nos. 946-947/2019, Naseem (A6) in Crl. A Nos. 1279-1280/2019, Sahab Singh (A8) in Crl. A No. 1980- 1981/2019, and Bhan Singh (A10) in Crl. A Nos. 1804-1805/2019.
The Incident :
4. The prosecution case as it unfolds in the First Information Report5[hereinafter referred to as ‘FIR’] is that there has been a long-standing factional dispute between two groups in Hamirpur, U.P. The group represented by Ashok Chandel (A5) and the group represented by Shukla family were inimically disposed against each other for a long time. The FIR is about the incident that has occurred at 09.10 P.M. on 26.01.1997 at Mohalla Subhash Bazar, Kasba, Hamirpur as two events occurring one after another in quick succession. The first incident is in front of the gun shop owned by accused no. 6, referred to as ‘Naseem’s gun shop’ and the second incident is near the r
(1) Murder – In a situation when there is a group attack which lasted for only a few minutes, it is unreasonable to expect an eye-witness to recount each fact in mathematical detail.(2) Defective inv....
1. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. 2. The acquittal re-enforces and reaffirms the....
Point of law: Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting ....
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to reliance on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony from interested parties and lack of independent evidence.
The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.
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....
Discrepancies in eyewitness accounts undermined the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to reasonable doubt of their involvement in the crime.
The court established that eyewitness testimony from related witnesses can be credible and sufficient for conviction, provided it is consistent and corroborated by other evidence, and that the absenc....
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
