Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
N. L. GANGULY, R. N. RAY
MADAN RAI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 1535 Of 1985
Decided On : 04/16/1996
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - SECTION 302, I. P. C. - EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 161, CR. P. C. - MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE - GUN SHOT INJURIES - BLACKENING AND TATTOOING - DISTANCE OF FIRING - EYE-WITNESSES - RELIABILITY - MOTIVE - REASONABLE DOUBT - INTERPRETATION OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT - TIME OF OCCURRENCE - ALTERATION IN FIR - INVESTIGATION - PARTIALITY AND DEFECTIVENESS - POST-MORTEM REPORT - PREFERENCE OVER INJURY REPORT - MEDICAL OPINION - CORROBORATION OF OCULAR EVIDENCE - ABSENCE OF BLOOD ON SPOT AND WEAPON - SEIZURE OF WEAPON - ESSENTIALITY - DIRECT EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Jai Ram Rai, a 15-year-old boy, by firing a gun at him. The prosecution alleged that the appellants had a common intention to murder Jai Ram Rai and that appellant Madan Rai had fired the gun from his licensed gun. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution case was doubtful and unreliable. The motive for the murder was not clear, and there was no evidence of any immediate cause for the appellants to have murdered Jai Ram Rai. The court also found that the time of the occurrence had been altered in the First Information Report (FIR), and that the investigation was partial and defective. The court further found that the medical evidence was contradictory, and that the post-mortem report could not be preferred over the injury report prepared by the doctor who had examined the injured victim. The court also found that the eye-witnesses were not reliable, and that their testimony was not corroborated by any other evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the motive for the murder was clear and established. 3. Whether the time of the occurrence had been altered in the FIR. 4. Whether the investigation was partial and defective. 5. Whether the medical evidence was contradictory and unreliable. 6. Whether the post-mortem report could be preferred over the injury report. 7. Whether the eye-witnesses were reliable and their testimony was corroborated by other evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the motive for the murder was not clear, that the time of the occurrence had been altered in the FIR, that the investigation was partial and defective, that the medical evidence was contradictory and unreliable, and that the eye-witnesses were not reliable and their testimony was not corroborated by any other evidence. The court further held that the post-mortem report could not be preferred over the injury report, and that the absence of blood on the spot and the weapon did not throw doubt on the credibility of the investigation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal of appellant Madan Rai and set aside his conviction and sentence. The court dismissed the appeal of the State against the acquittal of the other appellants.
( 1 ) THE appellants Madan Rai and three others tried by the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur in S. T. No. 150 of 1984 were convicted as under : Accused Madan Rai was convicted under Sec. 302, I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment of life and convicted and sentenced to two years R. I. under Section 440, I. P. C. and a fine of Rs. 500. 00. In default of payment of fine, R. I. for three years.
( 2 ) APPELLANTS Sachidanand Rai, Ras Behari Rai alias Panda and Janardan Rai were convicted under Section 440, I. P. C. and sentenced to two years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500. 00. In default of payment of fine, three months R. I. All the sentences to run concurrently.
( 3 ) GOVERNMENT Appeal No. 2166 of 1985 is directed against the same judgment and order against the acquittal of the appellants Ras Behari Rai alias Panda, Sachidanand Rai and Janardan Rai under Sections 302/34, I. P. C.
( 4 ) THE occurrence took place on 11/05/1984 at about 6. 30 p. m. in village Lauwadih P. S. Bhanwarkol Distt. Ghazipur when all the accused appellants are said to have fallen the wall by which a door had been closed by Rama Kant, father of the deceased Jai Ram Rai. It is said that appellant Madan Rai had fired from his licenced gun at Jai Ram Rai, a young boy of 15 years of age which resulted in his death after some time of the incident i. e. on 12-5-1984 at 2 p. m. after he had been taken to the hospital of the B. H. U. Hospital at Varanasi. The F. I. R. of the occurrence was lodged at the police station on 11-5-1984 at 11. 20 p. m. by the informant Siya Ram.
( 5 ) THE accused appellants Ras Behari Rai alias Panda, Sachidanand and Janardan Rai were charged to have shared the common intention with appellant Madan Rai for murdering Jai Ram Rai and as such charged under Sections 302/34, I. P. C. was framed. The appellant Madan Rai was charged under Section 302, I. P. C. simplicitor. All the aforesaid appellants were charged under Section 420, I. P. C. for committing the mischief having made preparation to cause hurt. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
( 6 ) IT would be convenient to give the pedigree and family of the complainant informant and the accused persons :-
( 7 ) JANARDAN Rai, accused is a distant co-lateral resident of the same village.
( 8 ) ACCORDING to the F. I. R. and the prosecution case, as revealed in the Court, the informant-complainant and the accused-opposite party except Janardan Rai lived jointly earlier. There had been a private partition between them some few years ago. The room in which the cattle used to be tethered was also partitioned. Accused Madan Rai wanted to usurp the northern room, out of the room in which the cattle used to be tethered which had fallen in the lot of informant Siya Ram. There was a door in the said room which could open towards the north in the angan of the accused appellant lot. The said door had been removed some time before the occurrence. The informant had closed this door by constructing a mud wall.
( 9 ) ON the date of the incident at 6. 30 p. m. at 11-5-1984, appellant Madan Rai came with his licenced gun along with Ras Behari Rai aliaspanda, Sachidanand and Janardan Rai, appellants who were armed with lathis. They started felling the mud wall. The informant Siya Ram Rai and his brother and father asked the accused appellant Madan Rai not to fell the wall. Madan Rai thereupon fired one gun shot from his gun. The sound of the gun fire attracted witnesses Vasistha Pandey and Bhimnath Rai and several other people of the village who came to the room of the informant where the cattle were tethered. The informant and the others who had come to the said room where cattle were tethered, saw Madan Rai climbed the roof of the room through the western corner of the house along with his gun. Jai Ram Rai was at the door of the room which was towards north east of the house. Madan Rai appellant fired one gun shot towards Jai Ram deceased which resulted in the injury on his face, Ja
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
