Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.
Munna Lal – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 490 of 2017
WITH
Sheo Lal – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 2017
Decided On : 24-01-2023
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 134 – Murder – Life sentence – It is quality of evidence that matters and not quantity – Even in a case of murder, it is not necessary to insist upon a plurality of witnesses and oral evidence of a single witness, if found to be reliable and trustworthy, could lead to conviction – Defective investigation is not always fatal to prosecution where ocular testimony is found credible and cogent – While in such a case court has to be circumspect in evaluating evidence, faulty investigation cannot in all cases be a determinative factor to throw out a credible prosecution version – Non-examination of Investigating Officer must result in prejudice to accused – If no prejudice is caused, mere non-examination would not render prosecution case fatal – Neither trial court nor High Court considered issue of non-examination of Investigating Officer – Failure/neglect to seize weapons of offence has effect of denting prosecution story so much so that same, together with non-examination of material witnesses constitutes a vital circumstance amongst others for granting appellants benefit of doubt – There is a fair degree of uncertainty in prosecution story – Charge of murder cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside by extending benefit of doubt. (Paras 28, 39, 40, 42 and 43)
(B) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Whether or not non-examination of a witness has caused prejudice to defence is essentially a question of fact and an inference is required to be drawn having regard to facts and circumstances obtaining in each case. (Para 39)
Facts of the case:
Present two criminal appeals, arising out of the same occurrence, call in question judgment and order of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 9th July, 2014 dismissing Criminal Appeal No.539 of 1986 [being an appeal under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure carried by appellants from the judgment and order dated 29th January, 1986 of the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh, in S.T. No.499 of 1985.
Question that this Court is tasked to decide on these criminal appeals is, whether the trial court, on the basis of the materials before it, was justified in recording conviction and consequently, sentencing appellants to spend the rest of their lives in prison.
Findings of Court:
Trial Court’s judgment of conviction and order of sentence contained in its decision dated 29th January, 1986 being unsustainable, stands set aside; consequently, impugned judgment and order dated 9th July, 2014 passed by the High Court, upholding the conviction and sentence, too stands set aside.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
THE CHALLENGE
1. These two criminal appeals, arising out of the same occurrence, call in question the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 9th July, 2014 dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 539 of 1986 [being an appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter “Cr.P.C.” for short)] carried by the appellants from the judgment and order dated 29th January, 1986 of the Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh, in S.T. No. 499 of 1985.
FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (F.I.R.)
2. Narayan, father of Ram Vilas, was murdered in the morning of 5th September, 1985 round about 10.00 hours. A written complaint was lodged soon thereafter, at about 12.10 hours, by Ram Vilas leading to registration of an F.I.R. under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter “IPC” for short). One Dr. Mohd. Hanif Khan was the scribe of the said FIR. Munna Lal, Sheo Lal, Babu Ram, and Kalika were accused of committing such murder.
INQUEST
3. Consequent upon registration of the F.I.R. Shailendra Bahadur Chandra, the Station Police Officer of Police Station Tilhar (who was also the Investigating Officer) proceeded to the place of occurrence, along with Ram Pal Sagar, S.I. and Udham Singh, constable. Inquest had been conducted by Ram Pal Sagar in course whereof a bullet was recovered at the place of occurrence from the blood oozing out from one of the injuries suffered by Narayan.
CHARGES
4. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet under section 302 was filed before the concerned court against each of the 4 (four) accused. Kalika had passed away in the meanwhile. Upon committal, the trial court framed the following charges:
“Charge
I, Sanwal Singh, II Addl. Sess. Judge, Shahjahanpur, do hereby charge you:
1. Shiv Lal
2. Munna Lal
3. Babul Ram, as follows:
That you along with Kalika on 05.09.85 at about 10.00 A.M. in village Fatehpur Bujurg alias Mohaddipur, police station Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur, at the field of Budhu Khan situated in the west of village Abadi did commit murder by intentionally and knowingly causing the death of Narain in that you Munna caused injuries by gunshot, you Babu Ram caused injuries by tamancha and you Shiv Lal caused injuries by Kanta and your associate Kalika deceased caused injuries by lathi and all of you intentionally co-operated in the commission of the said offence and that you thereby committee an offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and within the cognizance of this court of sessions.
And I hereby direct that you be tried by this court of sessions on the said charge.”
TRIAL
5. The prosecution examined 5 (five) witnesses to support its case and more than a dozen of documentary evidence. None was examined on behalf of the defence.
6. PW-1 was Dr. Ramesh, who conducted post-mortem. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the cadaver of Narayan:
(1) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm over forehead 3 cm above left eye brow wall maggots present.
(2) Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm over chin 1 cm below lower lip. Maggots were present.
(3) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm left side face 2 cm left lateral to left side of mouth.
(4) Incised wound 17 cm x 8 cm over front of abdomen cavity deep 5 cm above umbilicus. Visceral organs prolapsing.
(5) Gunshot wound of entry 2 cm x 1 cm over front of abdomen 3 cm right lateral to umbilicus tattooing present. Direction backward downward.
(6) Gunshot wound of exit 6 cm x 5 cm over left side of hip 5 cm below iliac crest.
(7) Gunshot wound of entry 2 cm x 1 cm over front of right thigh 15 cm below ilicae spine (ant) with direction backward lateral.
(8) Gunshot wound of exit 3 cm x 2 cm over lateral side of right thigh 12 cm below iliae crest.
7. According to PW-1 “death of Narayan occurred due to shock and haemorrhage and much bleedings” injury nos. 5 and 6 and likewise injury nos.7 and 8 noted above were respectively the entry and exit wounds corresponding with each other, which could be caused by gun
Murder – It is quality of evidence that matters and not quantity – Even in a case of murder, it is not necessary to insist upon a plurality of witnesses and oral evidence of a single witness, if foun....
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 court confirmed that related eyewitnesses can provide reliable testimony in murder cases when corroborated by medical evidence, emphasizing that evidence must be assessed for credibility rather t....
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on credible evidence, including witness testimony and medical findings, even absent direct physical evidence like weapon recovery.
Motive is not essential for conviction in murder cases if direct and credible eyewitness testimony is present.
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
