Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B.N.Katju, V.K.Khanna
MANOHAR
Versus
STATE
Decided On : 11 August 1982
Criminal Appeal No. 1855 of 1980
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE - EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION OF - CONVICTION - SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court for the murder of Har Lal under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellant shot Har Lal multiple times, resulting in his death. The appellant denied the charges and claimed false implication due to enmity.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted discrepancies in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses and questioned the motive for the crime. The court also found inconsistencies in the police investigation, such as the varying distances mentioned in the first information report and the inquest report.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was reliable and consistent.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses were unreliable and inconsistent, and that there was no clear motive for the crime. The court also noted discrepancies in the police investigation, which raised doubts about the accuracy of the evidence.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, and ordered his release.
Manphar has filed this appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Pilibhit dated 7th Ausust, 1980 passed in sessions trial No. A-194 of 1979 convicting him under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18th August, 1979 at about 6. P. M. while Har Lal deceased and his sister-in-law Smt. Rampa were sitting on one cot and Ram Bahadur (P. W. 10, Prem Raj (P. W. 2) and Nanhey were sitting on -another cot under the Chhapar in front of the house of Har Lal deceased in village Jamunia and Ram Nath was sitting on a cart close to the cot of the deceased the appsllaot came there armed with a pistol and fired at Har Lal deceased which resulted in his death immediately.
3. The first information report was lodged by Ram Bahadur (P. W. 1) at 7. 10 P. M. on the same day (18th August, 1979) at Police Station Madhotanda, the distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence being six kilometres.
4. The postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. R. C. Maheshwari (P. W 4) on 19th August, 1979 at 4 P. M. and the under mentioned ante mortem external injuries were found on the body of the deceased:
1. 15 (fifteen) gun shot wounds of entry 0. 2 cm. x 02 cm. each side on right side of the forehead scattered in an area of 6 cm. x 5 cm. Margins inverted. Clotted blood present.
2. 22 (twenty-two) gun shot wounds of entry 02 cm. x 0. 2 cm each size on left side of the forehead scattered in an area of 7 cm. x 5 cm. Margins inverted. Clotted blood present.
3. 5 (five) gun shot wounds of entry 0. 2 cm. x 0. 2 cm. each size on the left side of face in an area of 3 cm. x 3 cm. about 1. 5 cm. away from the left eye. Clotted blood present. Margins inverted. No blackening and tattooing on the above injuries 1, 2,3.
4. Abrasion 15 cm. x 05 cm. on the left side of neck above 3 cm. above the left collar bone,
5. On internal examination the frontal bone of both the sides was found to be fractured, the membrane was found to be ruptured and brain matter was coming out of the skull bones and meningial blood vessels were found to be ruptured.
6. In the opinion of Dr. Mahesh-wari (P. W, 4) the injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
7. The prosecution examined two eye witnesses, namely, Ram Bahadur (P. W. I) and Prem Raj (P. W. 2 ).
8. Tika Ram (P. W. 5) deposed that he saw the appellant armed with a pistol running away shortly after the incident.
9. Angan Lal (P. W. 3) was examined to prove the notice.
10. The appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that he was implicated falsely due to enmity.
11. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeded -in establishing the guilt of the appellant and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned earlier.
12. Prem Raj (P. W. 2) supported the prosecution case regarding the incident. It was stated by him that he had come to the house of Har Lal deceased about two hours before the incident and gave him three pieces of cloth to stitch. He remained sitting on a cot in front of the house of the deceased till the incident took place. It was stated by him that he told the Investigating Officer that he had gone to the house of the deceased for getting his clothes stitched but this was not mentioned in his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and he could offer no explanation for this omission. In these circumstances the explanation furnished by him for his presence at the time of the incident appears to be doubtful. Moreover, even if it be accepted that he had come to the house of the deceased for getting his clothes stitched there appears to be no adequate reason for him to sit in front of the house of the deceased for about two hours till the incident took place. It was first stated by him in his cross-examination that when he turned round after the shot had been fired at
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
