Back
2010 Supreme(All) 2785
2011(72) ACC 11
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Hon'ble Abdul Mateen,J. Hon'ble Yogendra Kumar Sangal,J.
Parsan And Others Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 752 of 1981
Decided On: 18.08.2010
Petitioner Counsel:- Janardan Singh,I.B.Singh
Respondent Counsel:- Govt. Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible eye-witness testimony, corroboration of evidence, and the duty of investigating officers to recover crucial evidence, emphasizing that the miscarriage of justice from acquittal of guilt is no less than from convicting an innocent.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302/34 and 394 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 302/34 and 394 IPC - The court discussed the evidence related to the commission of the offence under Section 302/34 and 394 IPC, the medical evidence, the presence of eye-witnesses, and the motive of the accused persons. The court analyzed the contradictions in the medical evidence and the ocular evidence, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the defense's claim of false implication due to enmity. The court also considered the role of investigating officers and the duty to recover looted articles and the firearm used in the occurrence. The judgment confirmed the findings of conviction and sentence of the trial court.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of Paramhans by the accused persons, who were convicted under Section 302/34 and 394 IPC. The prosecution presented evidence of the occurrence, including the FIR, post-mortem report, inquest report, and witness statements. The defense claimed false implication due to enmity and highlighted contradictions in the medical and ocular evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence credible, with unanimity among the eye-witnesses about the venue, time, and manner of the occurrence. The court considered the presence of sufficient light at the spot for identification, the prompt reporting to the police, and the surrender of the accused persons. The judgment confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused appellants.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of the evidence, contradictions in the medical and ocular evidence, delay in lodging the FIR, and the defense's claim of false implication due to enmity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the credibility of the eye-witnesses, the corroboration of evidence, and the duty of the investigating officers to recover looted articles and the firearm used in the occurrence. The court emphasized that the miscarriage of justice from acquittal of guilt is no less than from convicting an innocent.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the findings of conviction and sentence of the trial court were confirmed. The accused appellants' bail was cancelled, and the judgment and record were to be sent to the trial court for issuing process against the accused appellants.
1. This criminal appeal is at the instance of four accused namely Parsan, Bispat, Jhurrey and Mangrey who stand convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302/34 and 394 IPC for life imprisonment and seven years rigorous imprisonment respectively in Session Trial No. 449 of 1980, P.S. Umribegumganj, District Gonda vide judgment and order dated 15.10.1981 and 16.10.1981 passed by the IInd Additional Session Judge, Gonda. Both the sentences are to run concurrently.
2. Incident narrated in the FIR is that on 07.12.1977 at 2.00 P.M. wives of accused Parsan and Jhurrey (real brothers) came at the house of Ramhet/complainant situated at Village Ghadi Manjhar, P.S. Umribegumganj, District Gonda and made complaint that his "calf" caused damage in their Ikh-crop field and they hurled abuses. Complainant stated that calf was of his brother and his father Paramhans also scolded them. On this they returned with a threat that they will send their husband to teach lesson to them. Shortly, thereafter all the four accused armed with lathis came there and hurled abuses and threatened them. Complainant and his father under their fear hid themselves and they did not come before them. They all left the place threatening them that they will chop the tongue of the Paramhans and kill him as and when he will meet them. In the same day mid-night i.e. on 07/08.12.1977, when Paramhans was sleeping in his house, Marah/Bathak all the four accused entered in the house having firearm, sickle, lathis, etc., with them. Three out of them i.e. Jhurrey, Mangrey and Bispat caught hold and pressed Paramhans and Parsan fired shot on him with country made pistol and Bispat given sickle below on his tongue. As usual lantern was glowing in Bathak as Paramhans was suffering with poor vision. On hearing the hue and cry of Paramhans and noise of shot fired members of family awoke. Complainant ignited the "Khari" as such, there was sufficient light and they challenged the assailants. Other villagers and neighbourers also assembled there. Accused persons threatened them on the point of pistol and other arms and they looted ornaments from the body of the sister of the informant namely Shivraji who also was there and saw the occurrence. Accused persons when were leaving the place, they were chased but they succeeded in escaping from there after entering in Arahar Crop field. Thereafter the family members found victim Paramhans in dead position having firearm injuries on right side of his chest to shoulder and on tongue also.
FIR was lodged at about 9.30 A.M. on 08.12.1977 at P.S. Umari Begumganj scribed by Raghunath on the dictation of the complainant/informant. On the same case was registered against the named accused persons for the offence under Sections 302 and 394 IPC and entry was made in the G.D. Investigation of the case was taken up by S.H.O. Bharat Singh. He recorded the statement of complainant and his brother at police station and then proceeded to place of occurrence. After seeing the dead body there, he prepared the inquest report, photo lash, challan lash and letter to C.M.O. for the purpose of post-mortem of the dead body and the same was sealed and sent for post-mortem. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan of place of occurrence and collected blood stained and "Sada Mitti" sample of Ash of the "Khari" and also collected pellets spread there and sealed them and also prepared the memo's of the same. He then recorded the statement of the rest prosecution witnesses and made efforts for the search and arrest of the accused persons, but they were not available. Later on, he came to know that they have surrendered themselves in the Court of Magistrate.
Investigating Officer also collected post-mortem report of the body of Paramhans where doctor had given details of injuries and condition of body noticed by him and opined that death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. After concluding the inve
