[2012(7) ADJ 289 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : AMAR SARAN AND P.K.S. BAGHEL, JJ.
BABLOO @ VIRENDRA AND OTHERS ....Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
STATE OF U.P. ....Opposite Party
(Criminal Appeal No. 6952 of 2010, decided on 25th April, 2012)
[Paras 13, 14 and 16]
(B) Evidence Act, 1872—Section 106—Attractability—Prosecution—Burden of proof—Discharging of—Prosecution is not absolved from its duty of discharging—Its general or primary burden of proving—Case beyond reasonable doubt—However, Section 106 is attracted in exceptional cases. [Para 13]
Result; Appeal Allowed.
Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The appellants Babloo @ Virendra, Sandeep and Dharmvir have preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 15.10.2010 passed by the First, learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 1, Bijnor in S.T. No. 242 of 2010, Crime No. 1101 of 2009 and S.T. No. 243 of 2010, Crime No. 1103 of 2009. The appellants were put to trial and the trial Court convicted them for the offences under Sections 302/34 IPC sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/- each. The appellant No. 1- Babloo @ Virendra has also been convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act for two years R.I. in S.T. No. 243 of 2010, Crime No. 1103 of 2009.
2. Facts of the appeal are these: The appellant No. 1 Babloo, resident of village Bhogpur, police station Chandpur, District Bijnor was married with Meenu, the daughter of deceased Satpal Singh. Satpal Singh’s house is 6 km. away from his daughter’s house. On 29.11.2009 at about 4.00 p.m. the deceased’s daughter Meenu had made a phone call to her father and complained that her husband, the appellant No. 1-Babloo, appellant No. 2 Sandeep and the appellant No. 3- Dharmvir, all residents of village Bhogpur were beating her in connection with their demand for a new Maruti car. They also threatened to kill her and when she was talking to her father she was crying on the phone. Her father after receiving the said phone call immediately proceeded to her in-law’s house alongwith Rambir and Vipin. They reached there at 5.00 p.m. and found that her husband Babloo- the appellant No. 1, Sandeep-the appellant No. 2 and Dharmvir- the appellant No. 3 were still beating his daughter Meenu. The deceased Satpal Singh tried to save his daughter but Dharmbir and Sandeep caught hold of him and Babloo, the appellant No. 1 fired at Satpal Singh with a country made pistol. He was fataly wounded. Rambir and Vipin who had accompanied Satpal Singh were present all through and later on during trial they became eye-witnesses of the said incident. The critically injured Satpal Singh was taken to the hospital at Chandpur, where the doctor referred him to Bijnor hospital. In Bijnor also the doctor having regard to his precarious condition referred him to Meerut. While he was on the way to Meerut, he succumbed to his injuries. On 30.11.2009 Shyam Bir son of deceased Satpal Singh lodged an FIR (Ex Ka-1) at 9.15. a.m., which was recorded at police station Chandpur district Bijnor implicating appellants Babloo, Sandeep and their father Dharamvir. On the basis of allegation made therein a case crime No. 1101 of 2009 under Section 498-A, 323, 302/34 IPC and 3 /4 D.P. Act was registered against the appellant. On the same day viz. 30.11.2009 an empty cartridge was recovered from the spot (Ex-ka -4).
Sri Anil Kumar Singh, S.I. Police was nominated as I.O. of the case, who commenced investigation in the matter and prepared site plan. The I.O. arrested Babloo @ Virendra and recovered a country made pistol of 315 bore alongwith one live cartridge from the field of one Baran Singh. Another First Information Report (Ex Ka-16) was lodged on 2.12.2009 at 7.25 a.m. the case crime No. 1103 of 2009 under Section 25 Arms Act was registered against Babloo.
The inquest on the dead body was conducted and inquest memo, Chick No. 485 of 2009 was written by Head Moharir Daulatram. He had also made entries in G.D. (Ka-10). The Site plan was prepared by Gyanendra Singh (Ka-17). The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. The autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by the doctor concerned. The post-mortem report reveals that cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of anti mortem injuries. The following observations were made by the doctor in the postmortem report, (i) gun shot wound of entry 3.0 x 2.0, entry deep oval in shape, wound of exit 1.5 x 1.00 entry.
On 2.12.2009 the I.O. sent the cartridge for forensic examination, w
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.