Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D.K.Trivedi, R.P.Nigam
DWARKA
Versus
STATE
Decided On : 18 March 1999
Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 1980,
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - SECTION 302, I.P.C. - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 114 ILLUSTRATION (G) - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - EYEWITNESSES - TESTIMONY - RELIABILITY - CORROBORATION - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - MOTIVE - ENMITY - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACCUSED AND DECEASED - BURDEN OF PROOF - REASONABLE DOUBT - CONVICTION - JUSTIFICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted of murder under Section 302, I.P.C. The prosecution's case was that the appellants and two acquitted accused entered the house of the deceased at midnight and assaulted him, causing his death. The appellants' defense was that they were falsely implicated due to enmity with the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the testimony of the eyewitnesses, the deceased's wife and daughter, was unreliable due to inconsistencies and contradictions. The court also found that the F.I.R. was not lodged when it was said to have been lodged and was ante-timed, which diminished its importance. The court further held that the motive of enmity between the appellants and the deceased was not sufficient to establish guilt, as enmity is a double-edged weapon that could have led to false implication as well as the commission of the crime.
Issues: 1. Whether the testimony of the eyewitnesses was reliable and sufficient to establish the identity of the accused. 2. Whether the F.I.R. was lodged when it was said to have been lodged and whether its ante-timing diminished its importance. 3. Whether the motive of enmity between the appellants and the deceased was sufficient to establish guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the testimony of the eyewitnesses was unreliable due to inconsistencies and contradictions. The court noted that the eyewitnesses could not identify the assailants due to complete darkness in the house at the time of the incident. The court also found that the eyewitnesses' statements were self-contradictory and that they could not provide a clear and consistent account of the events. 2. The court held that the F.I.R. was not lodged when it was said to have been lodged and that its ante-timing diminished its importance. The court noted that the F.I.R. did not contain crime numbers or sections of the I.P.C. under which the case was registered, which suggested that it was not prepared at the time of the incident. 3. The court held that the motive of enmity between the appellants and the deceased was not sufficient to establish guilt. The court noted that enmity is a double-edged weapon that could have led to false implication as well as the commission of the crime. The court also found that the prosecution had not established a clear and direct link between the motive and the crime.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences recorded against the appellants, and acquitted them of the offences with which they were charged.
This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11-7-1980 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Session Trial No. 477 of 1978 State v. Dwarka and others, by which the appellants Dwarka, Ram Nath, Ishwar Din and Jhabbu were con victed under Section 302, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. and Section 324, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. and Section 148, I. P. C. and were sentenced to life im prisonment under Section 302, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. and two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148, I. P. C. and one years rigorous imprison ment under Section 324, I. P. C. read with/section 149, I. P. C. and the appellants Ram Khilavan, Nattha and Babu and Chhanga wire convicted under Section 302, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C, Section 147, I. P. C and Section 324, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. and were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. and one years rigorous imprisonment under Sec tion 147, I. P. C. and one years rigorous imprisonment under Section 324, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. It was also ordered that the sentences of each accused would run concurrently.
2. The case of prosecution as dis closed in the real report Ex. Ka. 1 lodged by Smt. Roop Rani P. W. 1 in the police station Intauja district Lucknow on 17-8-1977 at 9. 30a. m. is as follows:-
"smt. Roop Rani, wife of Manohar Lal, is resident of village Kandhaipur hamlet of Kum-harawa and she has a daughter whose name is Raj Kishori and who is aged 8 years and she has a son aged 3 years from her said husband on the night of 16/17-8-1977, she her husband and her children were sleeping in the courtyard of the house and a lantern was burning in Tarwaha as it used to burn daily and at about mid- night her neighbour Dwarka Ahir had said from Darwaza that "manohar your cow has released herself form the peg and he should tie her. " Upon this Roop Rani got her husband awaken and had told him that Dwarka had said that cow had released herself from the peg and he should tie the cow and that is why her husband opened the main door and then Ram Nath, Ishwar Din, Jhabbu, Ram Khilavan, Sohan Lal, Nattha and Nand Ram of the village and Babu Ahir of the village Manka Khera and Chhanga brother- of-law looser of Sohan Lal of village Kurwa with Banka, Karoli, Lathi an Danda entered in her house and she stood up and her husband ran towards the Kothari and the said persons had started assaulting him. She raised alarm and reached near her husband in order to save him an then all the persons had assaulted her by Karoli and Sohan Lal, Nand Ram and Ram Khilavan had caught hold of her and the said persons killed her husband inside Tarwaha and on her alarm, Jawala and Mathura of the village had reached there and these persons had seen the said persons coming out from the house. Chheda, uncle of Roop Rani had called Nanha who was her Bhanja (nephew) to give his proper ty to him and subsequently he gave his property to her by executing a will. Ram Nath and Jhabhu were helpers of Nanha and previously also these persons had entered in the house and assaulted and in respect of which a case is opening and she has old enmity with the said persons and on account of this enmity, Ram Nath and others had slain her husband. She had left the dead body of her husband in the supervision of her uncle Chheda and had gone to the police station to lodge the report and lodged the report there. "
3. On the basis of the oral report, Ex. Ka-1 a case against the appellants and two acquitted accused was registered at report No. 15 of the G. D. on 17-8-1977 at 9. 30 a. m. under Sections 147,148,302,323 and 452, I. P. C. whose copy is Ex. Ka-2.
4. Gotendra Pal Singh P. W. 5 was posted as Station Officer in police station Intauja district Lucknow in August, 1977. The report of this case was lodged in the police station in his absence on 17-8-1977 at 9. 30 a. m
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
