SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(All) 146

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. P. Mathur, M. M. Lal
CHHOTEY LAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Cri. Appeal 2525 Of 1978
Decided On : 02/27/1989

The testimony of eyewitnesses, when found to be reliable and convincing, can be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, even in the absence of corroborating evidence.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - Murder - Conviction and sentence - Challenge - Appreciation of evidence - Reliability of ocular testimony - Corroboration by medical evidence - Motive - Delay in sending special report to Magistrate - Effect.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Ram Chandra Dwivedi. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, who were related to the deceased, had a motive to kill him due to a land dispute. The prosecution relied on the testimony of three eyewitnesses, who were the deceased's sons and wife, as well as the medical evidence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the testimony of the eyewitnesses was reliable and convincing. The court also found that the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's version of events. The court rejected the defense's contention that the first information report was ante-timed and that the identity of the accused was not established until after the arrival of the investigating officer.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had committed the murder of Ram Chandra Dwivedi. 2. Whether the delay in sending the special report to the Magistrate tainted the investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had committed the murder of Ram Chandra Dwivedi. The court relied on the testimony of the eyewitnesses, which was found to be reliable and convincing, as well as the medical evidence, which corroborated the prosecution's version of events. 2. The court held that the delay in sending the special report to the Magistrate did not taint the investigation. The court noted that there were no other circumstances which would lead to the conclusion that the investigation was tainted.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants.

V. P. MATHUR, J.


( 1 ) OUT of the three appellants, Chhotey Lal and Manik Chand are real brother, being sons of Ram Bharos and are residents of village Tirhara. Police Station Manjhanpur, district Allahabad, and Lakhan son of Saddhu is kewat by caste and belongs to village Alpika Puni, pertaining to the same Thana. All the three have been convicted on a charge under Section 302 read with sec. 34 I. P. C. and sentenced to Imprisonment for life by Mr. K. P. Asthana, the then 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, vide his order dated 4. 9. 1978 passed in Session Trial No. 491 of 1976, feeling aggrieved, they have now come up in appeal.

( 2 ) THE deceased of this case was one Ram Chandra Dwivedi, who was the uncle of the appellants Chhotey Lal and Manik Chand. During consolidation operations, it appears, am agricultural field fell to the share of these three persons. Half of it belonged to the two appellants and the remaining half to Ram Chandra Dwivedi but it appears that Chhotey Lal and Manik Chand were in exclusive possession of the whole and though Ram Chandra was asking them to agree to a partition, they were not prepared. A month prior to this incident there was a quarrel between the deceased and these two appellants regarding the partition of this field. There, was thus bad blood between the deceased and these two persons on account of this land. So far as Lakhan Kewat is concerned, there has been a litigation between the deceased on one hand and Lakhans father on the other regarding an agricultural field, measuring S. S. bighas during the consolidation operations and this case was pending even at the time of this incident it is said that on account of this enmity the three appellants who were already very close inter se combined against the common enemy.

( 3 ) THE occurrence took place at about mid-night on 29/30-6-1976 in the Chhappar outside the main door of the house of the deceased in village Tirahara. About a few minutes before this occurrence there had been a whirl-wind as a result, of which die deceased as well as his two sons Shiv Kumar (P. W. 1) and Awadh Narain (P. W. 2) and his wife Smt. Nanki, who were sleeping outside the house in the open and brought their cots under the Chhappar. The deceased lay just infront of the door at a slightly lower level while his Wife and sons lay on the Chabutra on both Sides of this passage. At about midnight Shiv Kumar got up to pass urine and after doing so when he returned back to lie down on the bed he saw the three, appellants come near the Charpoy of his father. Chhotey Lal was armed with an axe (Kulhari), Manik Chand had a pharsa and Lakhan bad a spear, and a torch. He flashed his torch to locate the deceased and gave an alarm on which all the, appellants started to assault the deceased with their respective weapons. Shiv Kumar cried out. This woke up his mother and his brother. His sister Smt. Sumitra who was sleeping inside house also came, out of the house and saw the incident in part. Some of the neighbours were also woken up, and they raised cries from their houses. Within all this time the accused had done their job and after killing Ram Chandra Dwivedi on the spot, nm away before the neighbours could come there. Shiv Kumar was only 14 years of age. He is, the oldest of the sons of the deceased. His younger brother Awadh Narain was only 9 years of a seat, that time. There was no other adult male member in the family and, therefore. Shiv Kumar sent for his brother in law through messenger. By time he came, Shiv Kumar ascribed the first information report Ext. Ka. 1 and alongwith his, brother-in-law he went to Police Station, manjhanpur, covering a distance of 10 kilometres. on foot and lodged the report in the Thaila at, 10. 30 A. M. on 30. 6. 1976.


( 4 ) MR. Ram Babu Singh, Sub Inspector was present in the Thana and, he took up the investigation. He has been examined in this case as P. W. 6. He came to the village Tirhara and took custody of the dead body which w


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top