IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
MS. SABINA, SATYEN VAIDYA, JJ.
Lakhvir Singh @ Happy Son Of Shri Ranjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Home Govt Of HP At Shimla. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2019
Decided on : 02-04-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 323 and 324 - Arms Act 1959 - Section 25 and 27 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 154 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Murder Offence – Appeal Against Conviction - Prosecution case rested on premise that PW-21 Ravi Dutt, telephonically informed Police Station, Amb, District Una, H.P. that someone had caused grievous injuries to his mother and she had died as a result.
Finding of the Court:
Version of PW-1 against appellant found strong corroboration from discovery of weapon of offence at instance of appellant, which is relevant under section 27 of Evidence Act - Discovery of said fact has been duly proved by PW-4 - His version could not be impeached despite detailed cross-examination - Scientific evidence collected by investigating agency further proved that DNA profile from incriminating material found on katta (country made pistol) matched completely with DNA profile obtained from blood sample of deceased - No plausible explanation has come forward from side of appellant on this material piece of evidence save and except that evidence was planted - In absence of any material to doubt prosecution evidence, broad argument as to planting of evidence cannot be sustained - Appellant has also failed to discredit prosecution version by probabilising his defence of false implication - No support could be drawn by defence from material on record - On contrary, fact that appellant nurtured some grouse with his sister can also be seen as a double-edged weapon and his motive to kill his sister.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
By way of instant appeal, the appellant has assailed judgment dated 26.09.2018 and sentence order dated 03.10.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Una, District Una, H.P., whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Sr. No. | Sections | Sentence imposed on the convict |
| 1. | Under Section 302 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.25,000/- |
| 2. | Under Section 323 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. |
| 3. | Under Section 324 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three year and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. |
| 4. | Under Section 25 of the Arms Act 1959 for possession of firearm & ammunition. | Rigorous imprisonment for three year and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. |
| 5. | Under Section 27 of the Arms Act 1959 for using the firearm. | Rigorous imprisonment for three year and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. |
2.1 The prosecution case rested on the premise that on 21.10.2014, PW-21 Ravi Dutt, telephonically informed Police Station, Amb, District Una, H.P. that someone had caused grievous injuries to his mother and she had died as a result thereof. On such information, the police reached village Lamba Sail.
2.2 Police recorded the statement of PW-1 Rama Rani under Section 154 Cr.P.C to the effect that at about 7.30 PM on 21.10.2014, PW-1 was sitting with her mother Veena Devi in the ‘Veranda’ of their house. Her maternal uncle Lakhvir Singh (appellant) came and struck Veena Devi on her head with some rod like object made of iron. Veena Devi was dragged to a place where cattle used to be tethered and there also she was assaulted by the appellant. Appellant also inflicted blows on PW-1. In this assault, PW-1 and her mother had received injuries.
2.3 PW-1 called her brothers PW-21 Ravi Dutt and PW-2 Kharif Singh telephonically. Gurbachan Singh and Anjeev Singh also reached the spot on hearing the commotion.
2.4 The appellant was nurturing a grudge against the family of deceased as his wife had been residing in the house of deceased for some time.
2.5 On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR Ext.PW-23/A was registered at 11.50 p.m.
2.6 Appellant was arrested on 22.10.2014. He made a disclosure statement dated 24.10.2014 Ext.PW-4/A, disclosing therein that on 21.10.2014 he had concealed a country made pistol under a pine tree near “Lamba Sail” School on a link road to “Maidi” and he could get the same recovered. PW-4 Tilak Raj and Ranjeet Singh (not examined) witnessed the recording of aforesaid disclosure statement.
2.7 In pursuance to disclosure statement Ext.PW-4/A, appellant lead the police party and aforesaid witnesses to place “Talliya-da-Tillo” and got recovered a country made pistol from bushes underneath a pine tree. The country made pistol was blood stained and some blood stained hair were also found stuck between the chamber. The fire pin and a cartridge appeared to be stuck in the barrel. Recovery memo Ext.PW-1/B was prepared. The sketch Ext.PW-4/C of recovered pistol was prepared on spot and the recovered weapon was seized.
3. On completion of investigation, police found sufficient evidence against the appellant and filed “Challan” accordingly. Appellant was charged for the commission of offences under Sections 302, 323, 324 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution examined total 25 witnesses. Appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Appellant examined Dr. Indu Bhardwaj as DW-1 in his defence. On conclusion of t
Under Section 27 of the Arms Act 1959 for using the firearm. Rigorous imprisonment for three year and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six mo....
Point of Law : Murder - Conviction set aside - Trial court has committed gross-error in believing the sole testimony of PW5 and conviction should not have been based on such type of testimony, which ....
In a case of circumstantial evidence, the absence of motive is not always fatal to the prosecution case.
Conviction under IPC Section 302 and Arms Act Section 25 upheld due to credible direct witness testimony and supporting evidence, despite challenges to forensic integrity.
The judgment reinforces the principle that credible eyewitness testimony, supported by forensic evidence, can establish guilt in serious criminal offenses.
The court upheld a murder conviction based on consistent eyewitness testimony and reliable forensic evidence, establishing clear identification of the accused in a firearms-related homicide.
The refusal of the accused to undergo TIP, the recovery of the weapon of offence, and the consistent testimony of eyewitnesses can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The appellate court upheld the acquittal of the accused due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of credible evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete, unbroken chain of evidence. Improvements in oral testimonies, failure to link weapons through forensic reports, and recoveries from ....
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and unreliable witness testimonies and lack of conclusive evidence can lead to acquittal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.