Back
1992 Supreme(All) 228
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B.L. YADAV, I.S. MATHUR, JJ.
Jummu - Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 804 of 1979
Decided on : Apr 15, 1992
Advocate appeared:
Mohan Chandra
In a case where common intention is not proved, the prosecution must establish the exact nature of the injuries caused by each accused and it cannot be presumed that the remaining accused only caused the fatal injury.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - MURDER - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - EYE WITNESSES - MOTIVE - SHIFTING OF PLACE AND TIME OF OCCURRENCE - INCONSISTENCIES AND CONTRADICTIONS IN STATEMENTS - BENEFIT OF DOUBT:
Fact of the Case:
Appellant Jumma was convicted under sections 302 and 323 IPC for the murder of Hamidullah. The prosecution alleged that Jumma and two others assaulted Hamidullah and his son Raunaq Ali with lathis, resulting in Hamidullah's death. Jumma appealed the conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a motive for the murder and that the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses was unreliable. The court also noted that the prosecution had shifted the place and time of the occurrence, which was a material infirmity in the prosecution version. Additionally, the court found that the appellant could not have been convicted under section 302 IPC simpliciter without proof of the exact injuries caused by him, even if his complicity in the crime had been proved.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses was reliable. 3. Whether the prosecution shifted the place and time of the occurrence. 4. Whether the appellant could have been convicted under section 302 IPC simpliciter without proof of the exact injuries caused by him.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because there was no motive for the murder, the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses was unreliable, and the prosecution had shifted the place and time of the occurrence. 2. The court found that the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses was unreliable because they were chance witnesses, their statements suffered from material contradictions, and they were at such a distance from the alleged place of occurrence that they could not have seen the occurrence or identified the assailants. 3. The court held that the prosecution had shifted the place and time of the occurrence, which was a material infirmity in the prosecution version. 4. The court held that the appellant could not have been convicted under section 302 IPC simpliciter without proof of the exact injuries caused by him, even if his complicity in the crime had been proved.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, and acquitted the appellant.
I. S. Mathur, J.
1. Sessions Trial No, 515 of 1978 and Sessions Trial No. 621 of 1978, arising out of the same crime No. 245 of 1978, Police Station Amroha, District Moradabad, have been disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge, Moradabad by a common judgment dated 16-2-1979 in Sessions Trial No. 515 of 1978 appellant Jumma alongwith Buddhan and in Sessions Trial No. 621 of 1978 accused Kalua were charged under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and section 323 read with section 34 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted accused Buddhan and Kalua of both the charges. Appellant Jumma alone has been convicted under sections 302 and 323 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment under the first count and rigorous imprisonment of one year under the second count. This appeal by Jumma is directed against the said judgment and order.
2. The prosecution case is that accused Jumma and deceased Hamidullah were sons of one Buddhan by different wives. Informant Raunaq Ali (PW 5) is the son of the deceased. Accused Kalua was said to be brother- in-law of Jumma and Buddhan was said to be his associate. There was a dispute between accused Jumma and deceased Hamidullah over a Kotha, belonging to their father, and it was ultimately taken by Hamidullah on payment of Rs. 300/- to his father. This caused annoyance to appellant Jumma and he threatened the deceased with dire consequences a day before the incident.
On 15-6-978 at 8.00 A.M. the informant (PW 5) Raunaq Ali and his father, Hamidullah deceased, were returning to their house on their bullock cart after manuring their field. When they reached the field of one Abdul Hamid, which was earlier a grove, they were assaulted by all the three accused with lathis: On their cries, PW 1 Zahid, PW 4 Ramzani and PW 7 Alauddin came to the scene of occurrence and reprimanded the accused who escaped Hamidullah succumbed to his injuries. Leaving the dead body of his father, informant PW 5 Raunaq Ali lodged First Information Report (Exhibit Ka-4) at the police station Amroha, three miles from the place of occurrence, at 10.15 a.m. First Information Report was scribed by Head Constable PW 8 Charan Singh who also prepared the report (Exhibit Ka-5).
3. The investigation of the case was taken up by PW 9 S. I. Raj Pal Singh who happened to be present at the police station. He recorded the statement of Raunaq Ali, who was then sent for medical examination. On medical examination PW 2 Dr. Ajai Pal Singh found the following injuries on the person of PW 5 Raunaq Ali :-
1. Oblique lacerated wound size 4 cm x 1/2 cm x skull deep on the median plain of scalp 5 cm away from forehead hair line. Under observation.
2. Contusion size 6 cm x 2 cm on the dorsal aspect right fore-arm 3 cm below the right elbow joint.
3. Contusion size 3 cm x 2 cm on the dorsal aspect right forearm 4 cm below injury no. 2.
4. Contusion, size 16 cm x 4 cm on the lateral aspect of left thigh 13 cm below the anterior, superior iliac spine.
5. Oval abrasion size 1 cm x cm on the lateral aspect of left leg 12 cm below the left knee joint.
6. Oval abrasion size 1 cm x 3/4 cm on the lateral aspect of left leg 11 cm below the injury no. 5. According to Dr. Ajai Pal Singh, all the injuries were simple and were fresh and were caused by blunt weapon. He prepared his report (Exhibit Ka-1).
4. The Investigating Officer PW 9 S. I. Raj Pal Singh went to the spot and prepared a panchayatnama (Ex. Ka-2). He also prepared the papers Exhibits Ka-6, Ka-8 and Ka-9 and also memo regarding recovery of blood stained 'parala' (Exhibit Ka-3). A site plan (Exhibit Ka-10) was also prepared by him. The dead body of deceased Hamidullah was sent for post-mortem with PW 6 constable Kripal Singh. On autopsy PW 18 Dr. S. P. Upal found the following ante-mortem injuries :-
1. Contusion cm 2 x 1 cm on the left part of lower lip.
2. Lacerated wound 2 1/4 cm x 1/2 cm x skin deep on the chin.
3. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 3 cm x skin deep on the left shoulder top.
4. Lacera
