Back
2012 Supreme(All) 2976
[2013(1) ADJ 33 (DB)(NOC)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : RAKESH TIWARI AND ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, JJ.
SOMPAL ....Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. ....Opposite Party
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 4990 and 5833 of 2005, decided on 8th November, 2012)
Counsel :
P.N. Mishra, V.K. Jaiswal, Santosh Tripathi, Onkar Nath, Rajiv Gupta, Dileep Kumar, Gulab Chandra, Ram Shiromani Shukla, S.K. Mishra and M.A. Zaidi for the Appellant; A.G.A., Virendra Singh, S.P.S. Raghav and Anil Raghav for the Opposite Party.
Headnote:(A) (Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302/34 and 307—Arms Act, 1959—Section 25—Murder—FIR not ante-timed—Since, there is eye-witness account of incident—So motive has no much importance like cases based on circumstantial evidence—Testimonies of both witnesses of fact is cogent, clear and reliable—In view of Full Bench's decision in Gopal's case [1999(39) ACC 92] weakness of investigation is no ground to reject direct testimony of prosecution witnesses—Conviction upheld.
(B) Criminal Trial—FIR—Importance of—In criminal case, particularly in a murder case, FIR is a vital and valuable piece of evidence—For purpose of appreciating evidence led at trial.
(C) Criminal Trial—FIR—When delayed—Effect of—It not only gets bereft of advantage of spontaneity, danger—Also creeps in of introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
-
The case involves connected appeals challenging a judgment convicting the appellants for murder and illegal possession of arms, with each sentenced to life imprisonment and fines (!) (!) .
-
The prosecution's case is that the accused, motivated by old enmity, fired indiscriminately in broad daylight, resulting in the death of Rajendra Singh, a police officer, and injuries to others (!) (!) .
-
The incident was promptly reported, and the FIR was lodged without delay or evidence of ante-timing, making it a reliable piece of evidence for the case (!) (!) (!) .
-
Eye-witnesses, who are relatives of the deceased, provided consistent and credible accounts of the incident, including details of the firing, the sequence of events, and the involvement of the accused (!) (!) (!) .
-
Their testimonies are corroborated by medical evidence, including the autopsy report indicating gunshot wounds consistent with eyewitness descriptions, and injuries sustained by the witnesses themselves (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
The presence of the witnesses at the scene at the relevant time is supported by their statements and the circumstances of their injuries, which align with the timeline of the incident (!) (!) .
-
The argument that the witnesses are interested or partisan is countered by the consistency and reliability of their testimonies, which are further supported by the medical evidence and scene investigation (!) (!) (!) .
-
The fact that some witnesses had prior enmity with the accused does not necessarily diminish their credibility, especially given the immediate and spontaneous nature of their reports (!) (!) .
-
The investigation, although criticized for lapses such as not sending weapons for ballistic analysis, was nonetheless considered sufficient because the direct eyewitness testimony and medical evidence established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that weaknesses in investigation do not automatically lead to acquittal if the prosecution's case is otherwise supported by reliable evidence (!) (!) .
-
The appeals were dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentences, with instructions for the judgment to be communicated to the relevant court for compliance (!) .
Would you like a detailed legal analysis or assistance with drafting related documents?
In these two connected appeals, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 8.11.2005 passed by Sri Jaisheel Pathak, the then Additional Sessions Judge, ( Court No. 5), Ghaziabad in S.T. No. 127 of 1999, State v, Tejveer Singh and others, Crime No. 251 of 1998, under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C., P.S. Masoori, district Ghaziabad, S.T. No. 139 of 1999, State v. Tejveer Singh, Crime No. 560 of 19,98, under Section 25 , Arms Act, P.S. Kavi Nagar, district Ghaziabad, S.T. No. 140 of 1999, State v. Satveer Singh, Crime No. 561 of 1998, under Section 25 , Arms Act, P.S. Kavi Nagar, district Ghaziabad and S.T. No. 141 of 1999, State v. Sompal, Crime No. 562 of 1998, under Section 25 , Arms Act, P.S. Kavi Nagar, district Ghaziabad, whereby each of the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 , I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000 each with default stipulation. Each appellant had also been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000 each with default stipulation under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
2. The prosecution story in nutshell is that on 7.10.1998 at 9.30 a.m. complainant Sudesh Kumar son of Sri Baleshwar Yadav, resident of Village Raghunathpur, Police Station Masoori, district Ghaziabad submitted a written report scribed by Mahavir Singh Yadav, resident of Village Raghunathpur in P.S. Masoori, district Ghaziabad wherein he stated that his elder brother Rajendra Singh is serving the Delhi Police. On 7.10.1998, Rajendra Singh was going to Delhi on his scooter alongwith complainant. Co-villager Aman Singh and Ram Saran, were also coming on their motor-cycle and when they reached in front of Azad Memorial Inter College, Qasba Dasna at about 9.30 a.m. Tejveer Singh and Satveer Singh, sons of Rohtas and Sompal son of Sukhpal of their village having illicit, weapons came from behind on black colour Bullet motor-cycle No. D.L.-45-9303 and intercepting the complainant and his brother, all the three accused persons with intention to kill opened indiscriminate firing on them. In order to save himself Rajendra Singh ran towards the field, but the accused persons killed him by firing gun shots and he instantaneously died on the spot. The report further stated that the complainant saved himself by entering into the shop of Babu Mistri and closed the door. The accused persons also attempted to kill him, as they were having old enmity with them. On account of broad day indiscriminate firing terror was created In Qasba Dasna and the passersby leaving their shoes, chappals and bicycle at the scene of occurrence ran hither and thither. The people closed their houses and shops. The accused persons firing In the air made their escape good on their motor-cycle towards Ghaziabad. Leaving the dead body of his brother at the spot, the complainant submitted his written report in Police Station, Masoorl.
3. On the basis of this report a case under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C. at Crime No. 251 of 1998 was registered against the accused persons and the Investigation of the case was taken over by Sher Bahadur Singh, Station Officer P.W. 7. He reached at the spot after interrogating the complainant at the police station and collected samples of plain and blood stained earth. He also seized one empty cartridge of 315 bore, a pair of shoes and two pairs of chappals as also scooter No. DL-35P-1055 from the spot in presence of witnesses and prepared separate memos. Site plan was also prepared at the instance of the complainant. In the meantime, the Investigating Officer received Information through R. T. Set that all the three accused persons have been apprehended by Kavi Nagar police, so he reached there and obtained the copy of recovery memo and copy of G.D. report No. 25 of 12.15 p.m. dated 7.10.1998 and also interrogated the accused persons. From the memo regarding arrest of the accused and the recovery of illicit
