SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(All) 1352

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rakesh Tiwari, Anil Kumar Sharma, JJ.
Girish and Others -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. -Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 3835 of 2007 with Crimi#31;nal Appeal No. 3841 of 2007 with Criminal Revision (Defective) No. 427 of 2009
Decided On : 13-05-2013

Advocates:
Counsel for the Appellants : Dileep Kumar, Rajiv Gupta, K.S. Chahr , Rajrshi Gupta.
Counsel for the Respondent: Ram Yash Pandey, A.G.A., Shreeram Rawat , V.P. Srivastava.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of prompt FIR, the relevance of motive in a case of direct evidence, and the credibility of eyewitness testimony in reaching a decision.

Headnote:

Criminal Law - Murder - 302/149 IPC, 307/149 IPC, 148 IPC, 147 IPC, 429/149 IPC, 27 Arms Act, 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act - The judgment discusses the conviction and sentencing of the accused persons under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, Arms Act, and Criminal Law Amendment Act. The court also addresses the arguments presented by the defense and prosecution, including the promptness of the FIR, the motive for the crime, the reliability of the witnesses, and the examination of independent witnesses. The court upholds the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves a double murder and multiple injuries caused by indiscriminate firing by a group of accused persons. The incident arose from an old enmity between the complainant and the family of the accused. The prosecution presented evidence of the prompt filing of the FIR, the motive for the crime, and the eyewitness accounts of the incident. The defense raised concerns about the authenticity of the FIR, the lack of motive for the accused, and the reliability of the witnesses.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had successfully proved the charges against the accused persons. The court upheld the conviction and sentencing imposed by the trial court, affirming the guilt of the accused appellants.

Issues: The issues addressed by the court included the promptness of the FIR, the motive for the crime, the reliability of the witnesses, and the examination of independent witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of prompt FIR in criminal trials, the relevance of motive in a case of direct evidence, and the credibility of eyewitness testimony. The court also highlighted the need for caution in evaluating evidence and the sufficiency of motive for a crime.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, affirmed the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court, and ordered the transmission of the judgment to the court concerned for compliance.

Anil Kumar Sharma, J.—

Both the aforesaid appeals emanate from common judgement and order dated 21.04.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Agra in S.T. No. 282/2006, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgement. The appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:

Sl. No.

Name of accused

Under Section

Imprisonment

Fine

Default Imprisonment

1

Girish,

Karua, Lakhan, Vishambar, Vinod, Yashpal, Premanand, Suresh, Ramesh, Pankaj, Rameshwar, Kailashi & Ram Niwas

302/149 IPC

Life Imprisonment

Rs. 8,000/- each

Two years R.I.

307/149 IPC

10 years R.I.

Rs. 5,000/- each

One year R.I.

148 IPC

One year R.I.

-

-

147 IPC

One year R.I.

-

-

429/149 IPC

5- years' R.I.

-

-

7 Criminal Law Amendment Act

3-months' R.I.

-

-

2

Girish, Lakhan & Vishambar

27 Arms Act

7-years' R.I.

Rs. 3,000/- each

One year R.I.

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Revisionist Pankaj @ Pushpendra Tyagi has also challenged the orders dated 1.6.2006 and 30.3.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Agra and Juvenile Justice Board, Agra respectively whereby his criminal appeal no. 87 of 2006 preferred against the order of J. J. Board was dismissed and his prayer for declaring him juvenile was rejected.

3. The facts germane to the appeals as well as in revision are that on 18.01.2006 at 9.05 A.M. complainant Baijnath Singh s/o Vidya Ram, resident of Village Gopalpura, P.S. Pidhaura, District Agra submitted a written report in police station Pidhaura stating that there is old enmity between him and family of Kailashi. After killing his brother Lekh Raj, Kailashi has falsely implicated him, Ram Nath, Narayan Swaroop sons of Vidya Nath. Yesterday at about 7.00 P.M. scuffle took place between Virey Tyagi and Vishamber, Girish, Yashpal on the issue of electrocution of buffalo of former by fall of electric wire belong to the later. Virey was beaten by Girish, Vishamber and Yashpal at about 7.30 P.M. in front of house of Arun. He took shelter in the house of Arun who mediated and disbursed them. This act of Arun was not liked by accused persons, so on 18.01.2006 at about 8.40 A.M. Pramod, Arun and Baby d/o Pramod were giving fodder to cow and buffalo at their plot and in the meantime Lakhan and Vishamber sons of Vedri armed with rifle and gun, Girish s/o Suresh having rifle, Yashpal s/o Rameshwar, Karua @ Pramod s/o Suresh armed with unlicensed rifles, Vinod and Mahavir sons of Vedri having unlicensed gun, Premanand s/o Mahavir, Suresh & Ramesh sons of Narayan Das, Pankaj s/o Ramesh, Rameshwar & Kailashi sons of Bihari Lal, Ram Niwas s/o Mool Chand, r/o village Gopalpura and few others armed with country-made pistols in order to kill opened indiscriminate firing on Pramod and Arun sons of Ram Nath and Baby d/o Pramod, whereby all the three along with cows and buffaloes were injured. On hearing the sound of fires complainant, Jagannath adopted son of Bhagwan Swaroop, Som Dutt son of Pramod reached at the spot and witnessed the incident and recognised the accused persons who making fires made their escape good towards the fields. The report further stated that the condition of nephews, namely, Pramod and Arun is critical and they had been taken by Jagannath to C.H.C. Bah. The incident created terror in the village and people out of fear rushed to their houses and closed doors. The complainant took his injured niece baby to the police station and submitted his written report.

4. On the basis of the above report of the complainant case at crime no. 6/2006 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 429 IPC was registered at police station Pidhaura, investigation whereof was entrusted to S.I. Kundan Lal. Injured Baby was medically examined by Dr. Mahendra Kumar at C.H.C. Bah at 9.45 A.M. and he found the following injury on her person:

Gun shot wound of entry just above super sternal size 1.0 cm x 1.0 cm x muscle deep with abrasion 7 cm x 1 cm on right side of wound (grazing). Abrasions are inverted, no blackening and tattooing. A small piece of metallic expanded






















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top