Back
1987 Supreme(All) 552
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B.N. KATJU, R.K. SAXENA, JJ.
Siya Ram Upadhyay - Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 356 and 357 of 1978
Decided on : Dec 07, 1987
N.P. Singh, P.C. Chaturvedi, V.C. Tiwari, G.S. Chaturvedi, Sanjiv Ratan, S.K. Rawat, G.C. Upadhya, Manoj Prasad, Vinod Prasad
The court emphasized the importance of reliable and consistent evidence, including the proper use of dying declarations and the careful evaluation of eyewitness testimony, in determining the guilt of the accused in criminal cases.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - SECTION 302/149, 307/149, 324/149, 323/149, 147, 148 IPC - EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY - DYING DECLARATION - ADMISSIBILITY - CORROBORATION - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - INDEPENDENT WITNESS - MOTIVE - GUILT NOT ESTABLISHED.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants were convicted for murder, attempt to murder, and other offenses related to a violent incident that resulted in the deaths of two individuals. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of four eyewitnesses, including a dying declaration made by one of the victims. The appellants denied involvement and claimed false implication due to enmity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dying declaration could not be used to corroborate the testimony of the victim in the trial court as it was not made at or about the time of the incident or to an authority competent to investigate the incident. The court also found inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of the eyewitnesses, raising doubts about their reliability. The medical evidence did not support the claims of gunshot injuries mentioned by some witnesses. The court further noted the absence of a clear motive for the appellants to participate in the incident.
Issues: 1. Admissibility of dying declaration as corroborative evidence. 2. Reliability of eyewitness testimony. 3. Consistency of medical evidence with witness statements. 4. Presence of motive for the appellants to commit the offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A dying declaration can only be used to corroborate a witness's testimony if it was made at or about the time of the incident and to an authority competent to investigate the incident. 2. Eyewitness testimony must be carefully scrutinized for inconsistencies and contradictions, and independent corroboration is necessary to establish the reliability of such testimony. 3. Medical evidence should be considered in conjunction with witness statements to assess the accuracy and consistency of the accounts provided. 4. The absence of a clear motive for the accused to commit the offenses can raise doubts about the reliability of the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The court allowed both appeals, setting aside the convictions and sentences of the appellants. The court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.
B. N. Katju, J.
1. Siya Ram Upadhya and Vijai Upadhya have filed Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1978 and Bhoora, Lorika, Nanhaku, Bhikhari and Kunmun have filed Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1978 against the judgment of III Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi dated 4-2-1978 passed in Sessions Trial No. 152 of 1976. All the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 324/149 and 323/149 IPC and have been sentenced to life imprisonment, five years rigorous imprisonment, one year rigorous imprisonment and six months rigorous imprisonment respectively. Nanhaku appellant has further been convicted under section 147 IPC and has been sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. The remaining appellants have further been convicted under Section 148 IPC and have been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Brij Mohan PW 3 is the son of Rambodh PW 1 and Gopal and Sheorati deceased were brothers of Rambodh PW 1.
Sadhu Upadhya and Sheo Shanker Upadhya co-accused are brothers. Vijai Upadhya appellant is the nephew of Siya Ram Upadhya appellant and they are the collaterals of Sadhu Upadhya and Sheo Shanker Upadhya co- accused.
3. The case of the prosecution is that Gopal deceased had instituted a case under Section 436 IPC against Ram Surat Singh co-accused, Rekhai Singh and Fatingi Singh prior to the occurrence in which the aforesaid persons were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. Lorika appellant had illicit relations with the wife of Gopal deceased and had abducted her about six months before the occurrence. There was litigation between Sadhu Upadhya and Sheo Shanker Upadhya co-accused on the one hand and Ram Bodh PW 1 and others on the other over land which was pending at the time of the occurrence and 2-9-1974 was the date fixed for hearing in that case in the court at Varanasi. On that day at about 5 a. m. while Rambodh PW 1, Dashmi PW 2 and Gopal and Sheorati deceased were going on two cycles to Varanasi from their village Nawahi and had covered a distance of about hundred paces and had reached the culvert of the canal they told Brij Mohan PW 3 who was accompanying them on foot to go back to the village. After Brij Mohan PW 3 had left and they had covered a distance of about one furlong on cycles all the appellants and Vishwanath Singh, Ram Surat Singh, Lalta Singh, Jhuri Singh, Sadhu Upadhya, Sheo Shanker Upadhya, Sadhu Singh, Bansh Lochan Singh, Sikhi, Ramroop and Swaroop co-accused and about fifteen others came out of the paddy and Arhar fields which were near the canal patari shouting 'Maro Maro'. Siya Ram Upadhya and Vijai Upadhya appellants were armed with guns while the other appellants and the co-accused and others were armed with Gandasas, Lathis and spears. On seeing them they left their cycles and tried to run towards the village but they were surrounded by the appellants and the co-accused and their associates and two shots were fired and Ram Surat Singh co-accused assaulted Rambodh PW 1 with his Gandasa as a result of which he fell down. Ghoora and Bhikhari appellants and Sikhi co-accused thereafter assaulted him with Gandasas and other appellants and co-accused assaulted him with Lathis and spears as a result of which he fell down and became unconscious. The appellants and the co-accused also assaulted Dashmi PW 2, Brij Mohan PW 3 and Gopal and Sheorati deceased with the weapons with which they were armed as a result of which they received injuries and Gopal and Sheorati deceased died on the spot.
4. The first information report was lodged by Brij Mohan PW 3 at Police Station Chandauli at 6.30 a. m. on the same day (2-9-1974), the distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence being four miles.
The injuries of Rambodh PW 1, Dashmi PW 2 and Brij Mohan PW 3 were examined by Dr. J. B. Rai PW 7 on 2-9-1974 at 8 a, m., 8.20 a. m. and 8,45 a. m. respectively and the under mentioned injuries were found on their person :
Rambo
