Back
2005 Supreme(All) 2072
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Imtiyaz Murtaza and G.P. Srivastava, JJ.
Ram Nath son of Mangali
Versus
State of U.P.
CRIMINAL APPEAL 1938 of 2000
Decided On : 28 October 2005
Criminal Appeal 1938 Of 2000
B.D.SHARMA, C.K.Sharma, J.P.Singh, R.B.Sahai, R.L.VERMA,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on eyewitness testimony, corroboration of evidence, and the admissibility of recovery of weapons based on joint statements.
Headnote:
I.P.C. - Conviction under Sections 302/149, 302/120-B, 148, 404 and 25 of Arms Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 302/149, 302/120-B, 148, 404 and 25 of Arms Act
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute arising from illicit relations, leading to a violent assault resulting in multiple deaths. The appellants were convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical reports, to be credible and sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of the eyewitness testimony, the establishment of motive, admissibility of recovery of weapons, and the integrity of the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the testimony of relatives as eyewitnesses should be examined with caution but cannot be disbelieved solely based on their relationship to the victims. The court also held that the absence of a proven motive does not weaken the prosecution's case if supported by reliable evidence. Additionally, the recovery of weapons based on joint statements was deemed admissible. The court further noted that minor errors in the investigation did not discredit the eyewitness accounts, and the post-mortem reports corroborated the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court.
( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3. 8. 2000 passed by IV additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in S. T. No. 812 of 1996 and 813 of 1996 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/149 I. P. C. and 302/120-B, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and under Section 148 i. P. C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant No. 3 Chheda Lal had been further convicted under Section 404 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 3000/- and under Section 25 of Arms Act to undergo sentence for one year.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the report of C. J. M. appellant No. 4 Budhsen died on 23. 10. 2004 and the appeal of Budhsen has already been abated vide order dated 1. 8. 2005.
( 3 ) THE brief fact of the case as mentioned in the report lodged by Rajendra Singh is that his niece sarla was married with Rajesh Singh s/o Inspector Singh r/o village Mathudadi. The mother-in-law of Sarla, Smt. Ram Moorti had illicit relations with one Ram Nath s/o Mangol teli. The husband of Sarla had objected and also made complaint. He alongwith Inspector Singh s/o Malikhan Singh, nephew Devendra Singh came to village Mathudadi to advise Ram Moorti. In the meantime she had informed her lover Ram Nath about this matter. Ram Nath alongwith his brother Data Ram, Chheda Lal, Budh Sen, nephew Prem Pal and Natthu Lal armed with banka and Kanta were searching for them. At about 5 p. m. when they were returning after eating watermelon from the "palage" of Rajesh Singh and reached at the culvert near the house of Ram nath suddenly all the accused persons surrounded and started assaulting them. Devendra Singh after receiving injuries fell on the ground and his rifle also fell there. He screamed and ran away. He saw that his niece Sarla and Har Pal Singh were coming alongwith several other villagers to save them. In the meantime his brother Inspector Singh and son-in-law Rajesh Singh died on the spot. Devendra Singh jumped into the river in an injured condition and was chased by Data Ram and Prem Pal and they killed him in the river by assaulting with their respective weapons. The accused took away his licensed rifle and belt of cartridges. He reached at the police station and lodged the report on 16. 5. 96 at 6. 45 p. m. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is 7 km. Ajaz Mohammad Khan, Head Moharrir prepared the chik F. I. R. and entered in the G. D. The Chik report is Ex. Ka. 2 and G. D. entry is Ex Ka. 3.
( 4 ) AFTER the registration of the case Sub-inspector Brijendra Singh alongwith Sub-inspector j. P. Nathani and other constables reached at the place of occurrence. The dead bodies of Rajesh singh and Inspector Singh were recovered on 16. 5. 96. On 17. 5. 96 he prepared the inquest memo of the dead bodies of Rajesh Singh, Inspector Singh and Devendra Singh. The dead body of devendra Singh was taken out form the river Dewaha. He also prepared relevant papers for the post mortem examination, which are Exts. ka. 9 to 26.
( 5 ) THE initial investigation was conducted by Brijendra Singh, who died about two months prior to recording of his evidence. He recorded the statements of Rajendra Singh, Smt. Sarla Devision 16. 5. 96. He also prepared the site plan on 17. 5. 96, which is Ex. Ka. 27. He also prepared the recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth and other articles of Inspector Singh and devendra Singh and prepared the recovery memo, which is Ex. Ka. 28. He prepared the recovery memos of blood stained and plain earth, which are , Exts. 15,16,17 and 18. On 19. 5. 96 Chheda Lal and Data Ram were arrested. From the possession of Chheda Lal one rifle No. AB-95/3508 of 12 bore and license No. 450 was recovered and recovery memo was prepared, which is Ex. Ka. 29. A case No. under Section 25/27 Arms Act was registered against Chheda Lal and chik F. I. R. is ex. Ka. 30 and G. D.
