Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
S.N.Shukla, Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, JJ.
Jitendra and Another -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1726 of 2006
Decided On : 21-12-2011
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC - [Section 302, Section 34 IPC] - The court discussed the delay in lodging the FIR, defects in investigation, and the reliability of witnesses. The court emphasized that delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate does not necessarily lead to discarding the entire prosecution case. It also highlighted that the absence of independent witnesses and defects in investigation cannot be the sole basis to doubt the prosecution story. The court concluded that the judgment of the trial court was in accordance with the law and correctly appreciated the evidence, thus dismissing the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
A FIR was lodged for the murder of Viresh Kumar Singh, who was shot by the accused while trying to save his life. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies and postmortem reports. The defense argued that the complainant was a chance witness and raised doubts about the delay in lodging the FIR, defects in investigation, and the absence of independent witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate and defects in investigation were not sufficient grounds to discard the prosecution story. It emphasized that the absence of independent witnesses and defects in investigation cannot be the sole basis to doubt the prosecution story. The court concluded that the judgment of the trial court was in accordance with the law and correctly appreciated the evidence, thus dismissing the appeal.
Issues: The issues included the delay in lodging the FIR, defects in investigation, reliability of witnesses, absence of independent witnesses, and the absence of corresponding hole in the deceased's clothing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate and defects in investigation cannot be the sole basis to doubt the prosecution story. It also highlighted that the absence of independent witnesses and defects in investigation cannot be the sole basis to doubt the prosecution story.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the judgment of the trial court was in accordance with the law and correctly appreciated the evidence.
This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 26.8.2006 passed in Session Trial No. 268/2000 arising out of Case Crime No. 17/2000, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station Ashivan District Unnao. By the judgment under challenge the trial court convicted the appellants Jitendra and Satyendra who are sons of Rajendra Singh, and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each with default stipulation.
In brief the facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summed up as under:-
1. A FIR was lodged on 26.1.2000 at 2.00 a.m. by Shyama Kumar Singh, who happens to be the uncle of the deceased Viresh Kumar. Viresh Kumar got some land from his maternal grand uncle in village Udshah and thereafter he started living in the said village while Shyama Kumar Singh is resident of village Osia, P.S. Fathepur, District Unnao.
2. As per prosecution version on 25.1.2000 the complainant Shyama Kumar Singh met his nephew Viresh Kumar Singh in village Safipur, from there they came to village Udshah on motorcycle. The motor cycle was parked by them near the hospital, situated on the outskirts of the village Udshah, because from there the road to the village was very muddy. After parking the motorcycle both were going towards the house of the deceased Viresh. On their way they met Bhola Singh, Shankar Singh and Har Sahai, while conversing with each other when they reached in front of the house of Babu Singh then accused Babu Singh, Jitendra Singh and Satyendra Singh who are all the real brother and Munna Singh @ Pradeep Sing who is brother-in-law of Babu Singh, who was residing for a long time in village Udshah, armed with country made pistol exhorted Viresh that they shall teach him a lesson for Pradhani of the village and also started abusing him. Viresh asked them not to abuse then Babu Singh aimed him country made pistol towards Viresh. Viresh in order to save his life ran towards the house and all the four accused persons chased Viresh. Viresh entered into the house of Harish Chandra (Dhobi). All the accused persons trespassed into the house of Harish Chandra (Dhobi). Accused persons fired at him in the courtyard of Harish Chandra causing his instantaneous death. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that this occurrence has taken place in conspiracy with Narendra Singh.
3. F.I.R. of this case (Ex. Ka-1) was lodged by Shyama Kumar Singh and on the basis of it, Chik Report (Exhibit Ka-2) and G.D.(Exhibit Ka-3) were prepared. I.O. went to the place of occurrence and prepared inquest report on 26.1.2000 and after preparing the other papers (Exhibit Ka-8 to Ka-11) sent the dead body for postmortem. The postmortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr. Qureshi on 26.1.2000 at 2.10 p.m.
4. The I.O. Inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site-plan (Exhibit Ka-12) and recovered 3 empty cartridges of 315 bore and prepared Fard of recovery Exhibit Ka-13. Blood stained and plain earth was also taken into custody by the I.O. and its Fard Exhibit Ka-14 was prepared. During the course of investigation on 29.1.2000 accused Bhola Singh, Jitendra Singh and Sattyendra Singh were arrested by the police and from the possession of Bhola Singh and Jitendra Singh each one country made pistol of 315 bore and 2 live cartridges of 315 bore were recovered and nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of accused Satyendra Singh.
5. The Fard recovery of the said arms was prepared on the same day and on the basis of this Fard, chik report Exhibit Ka-17 was prepared and G.D. for registration of the case Exhibit Ka-19 was prepared. The I.O. of the case who has inspected the case under Section 25 of the Arms Act and prepared the site plan (Exhibit Ka-5). After completion of the investigation charge sheet under Section 302 IPC (Exhibit Ka-15) was filed and charge sheet under the Arms Act (Exhibit Ka-16) was filed. The cloths of the deceased with plain and
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
