Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : RAKESH TIWARI AND ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, JJ.
ABHILAKH SINGH ....Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
STATE OF U.P. ....Opposite Party
(Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2002, decided on 12th April, 2013)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872—Section 134—Examination of witness—Particular number of—Criminal trial—No particular number of witnesses to be examined in criminal trial in proof of a given fact.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case involves a murder and attempt to murder, with the appellant being convicted on the basis of ocular evidence, medical evidence, and the prompt lodging of the FIR (!) (!) .
The FIR was lodged promptly within two hours of the incident, which supports its credibility and reduces the likelihood of fabrication or embellishment (!) (!) .
The prosecution's case was supported by eyewitness testimony from closely related witnesses, who testified about the incident, the manner of firing, and the place of occurrence, with their testimonies corroborated by medical evidence (!) (!) (!) .
The non-examination of the Investigating Officer was not deemed fatal to the prosecution, as the evidence on record was sufficient and credible (!) (!) .
The accused's defense, claiming false implication and lack of motive, was considered but found unpersuasive given the evidence of prior disputes, suspicion regarding the murder of a family member, and the motive to eliminate the deceased (!) (!) .
The witnesses of fact, despite being related, were deemed credible with their testimonies requiring careful scrutiny but not outright rejection (!) (!) .
The medical evidence confirmed the cause of death and the nature of injuries inflicted, aligning with eyewitness testimonies about the firing from close range (!) .
Contradictions in witness testimonies, which occurred due to the time lapse since the incident, were considered not material enough to undermine the core evidence (!) (!) .
The place and manner of the assault were proved through both eyewitness accounts and physical evidence recovered from the scene, including cartridges and earth samples (!) .
The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld, with the appellant continuing to serve his sentence in jail (!) .
The court emphasized that the absence of certain witnesses or non-examination of the Investigating Officer does not necessarily weaken the prosecution case if the evidence on record is sufficient and trustworthy (!) (!) .
The importance of prompt FIR lodging in establishing credibility and the integrity of the investigation was reaffirmed, and delays in transmitting the FIR to the Magistrate were considered insignificant given the circumstances (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you'd like a more detailed analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 21.2.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2. Budaun in S.T. No. 6 of 1992. under Sections 302/34 and 307/34, I.P.C., P.S. Bisauli, District Budaun. whereby the appellant has been convicted under the above offences and sentenced to imprisonment for life under each section. The sentences were to run concurrently. Succinctly stated the prosecution story is that on 17.9.1991 at 7.30 p.m. Atishvir Singh S/o. Tejpal Singh, r/o village Disauliganj, P.S. Bisauli. District Budaun submitted a written report in P.S. Bisauli stating that today at 5.30 p.m. as soon as his brother Virbhan Singh alongwith his son Saurabh turned towards his gali, Abhilakh Singh son of Mahendra Singh armed with gun. Harendra Singh brother-in-law ( sala) of Chandra Bhan Singh resident of village Sartalkhera. P.S. Chandausi alongwith two others armed with country made pistols of 315 bore caught Virbhan Singh and dragged him towards his house, where Abhilakh Singh and Harendra Singh fired shots from close range at Virbhan Singh who instantaneously died on the spot. On hue and cry raised by Virbhan Singh and Saurabh Singh the complainant and his father. ran from their house and from other side Vijay Bahadur Singh. Dhirpal Singh and Narendra Pal Singh desisted Abhilakh Singh not to do so but he and Harendra Singh fired shots on him. Abhilakh Singh challenged to kill the complainant whereupon Harendra Singh and two other companions chased and fired three shots on them but they took shelter by the side of a wall and could manage their escape. After the incident Abhilakh Singh alongwith three companions went towards western side. The report further stated that up till 3-4 years there was land dispute/litigation between complainant and Abhilakh Singh but due to the intervention of relatives was compromised. About four months ago Ahabaran Singh brother of Abhilakh Singh was killed and in this connection Dhirendra Singh and others are in jail. Abhilakh Singh suspected that Virbhan Singh had conspired in the elimination of Ahabaran Singh. He made complaint to this effect to Ram Pal Singh, r/o Chandoi, P.S. Islam Nagar who was instrumental in the compromise between Abhilakh Singh and Virbhan Singh.
2. On the basis of this report case at crime No. 424/91, under Sections 302, 307, I.P.C. was registered, investigation whereof was entrusted to S.I. Ram Lakhan Pandey. The Investigating Officer reached at the spot and collected samples of plain and blood stained earth and also seized two empty cartridges of 315 bore, one cartridge of 12 bore and missed cartridge of 12 bore from the spot through memo. He interrogated the witnesses and prepared site plan. The inquest on the cadaver of the deceased was prepared at 9.30 p.m. on 17.9.1991 and it was sent for autopsy in sealed cover alongwith usual papers. Dr. V.K. Mishra conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased on 18.9.1991 at 3.30 p.m. He found that 35-years old deceased was having thin built body. Rigor mortis had passed off from upper limb but was present in lower extremities. Postmortem staining was present in dependent parts ( on dorsal aspect of body). Left upper arm was plastered. On cutting the plaster, shaft of left humerus was found fractured in the middle with callous formation showing that it was about 3-4 weeks' old fracture. The doctor found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased:
1. Large lacerated wound of the size 13 cm. x 8 cm. on left side of skull extending from lateral part of left eye to left ear to occipital area of skull and parietal area. Wound is cavity deep. All the bones involved in the area are fractured into multiple small fragments and brain matter have almost washed out of the wound leaving skull cavity empty. Margins of the wound are inverted. Blackening and tattooing present on left side of face and all round the wound. Direction of wound is down wards to the right
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
