Back
2014 Supreme(All) 501
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Amar Saran, Vijay Lakshmi, JJ.
Nepal Singh and Another -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 867 of 1983
Decided On : 03-03-2014
Counsel for the Appellants : Omkar Singh and Keshav Sahai.
Counsel for the Respondent: D.G.A.
The reliability of witnesses, corroboration of witness statements with documentary evidence, and the lack of necessity for acquitting the appellant due to the acquittal of a co-accused were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302/34 I.P.C - [Section 302, Section 307, Section 25 Arms Act] - The court discussed the credibility of witnesses, the timing and location of the occurrence, the medical evidence, and the motive behind the crime. The judgment highlighted the reliability of the prosecution witnesses, the corroboration of their statements with documentary evidence, and the immateriality of minor contradictions. The court also emphasized the lack of necessity for acquitting the appellant due to the acquittal of a co-accused. The judgment concluded that there was no infirmity in the trial court's decision and dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the appellant under Section 302/34 I.P.C for a murder that occurred in a cloth shop in 1979. The prosecution presented witnesses and documentary evidence to support their case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution witnesses to be reliable and trustworthy, with their statements corroborated by documentary evidence. The court emphasized the immateriality of minor contradictions and the lack of necessity for acquitting the appellant due to the acquittal of a co-accused. The court also highlighted the motive behind the crime and the timing and location of the occurrence.
Issues: The credibility of witnesses, the timing and location of the occurrence, the motive behind the crime, and the necessity for acquitting the appellant due to the acquittal of a co-accused were the key issues discussed in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized the reliability of the prosecution witnesses, the corroboration of their statements with documentary evidence, and the immateriality of minor contradictions. The court also highlighted the lack of necessity for acquitting the appellant due to the acquittal of a co-accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to surrender before the trial court to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court.
This criminal appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 8.4.1983 passed by learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Session Trial No.328 of 1979 convicting the appellants and sentencing them to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 I.P.C.
2. Accused Appellant Bedu @ Ved Prakash died during pendency of appeal, hence vide order dated 16.5.2012 the appeal of Bedu @ Ved Prakash got abated. The appeal of Nepal Singh only survives which is before us.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-Nepal Singh and learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State.
4. The appellant has questioned the correctness of the impugned judgement averring that the conviction being against the weight of evidence on record, is contrary to law and the sentence being too severe is also bad in law.
5. For the purpose of consideration of rival contentions urged in this appeal and with a view to find out whether this Court is required to interfere with the impugned judgement of the learned lower court, the necessary facts as unfolded during trial are briefly stated hereunder :
On 24.5.1979 at 12.30 p.m. an F.I.R. was lodged at the Police Station Thana Bhawan, Muzaffarnagar, by the informant Mustakeem mentioning therein that there is a cloth shop in partnership of Ram Gopal and his brother Meharban in the main market of Qasba Thana Bhawan, District Muzzafarnagar. Mustakeem often used to sit on that cloth shop in the absence of Ram Gopal and Meharban on behalf of his brother. On 24.5.1979 at about mid-day when Mustakeem was sitting at this shop, Harpal and Bhagmal came to the shop to purchase cloth. While they were selecting the cloth, Meharban, Mamchand, Sardara and Om Prakash (the deceased victim) also arrived at the shop. At that time, accused Nepal and Bedu alongwith two others all armed with pistols reached there. Nepal and Bedu dragged out Om Prakash from the shop and in no time they opened fires on Om Prakash with their pistols. Receiving the gun shots, Om Prakash fell down on the ground. In the meantime accused Tek Chand, (who was one among the two unnamed accused) also opened a fire on Om Prakash. After that all the assailants ran away towards the market. The witnesses and public which had gathered there hearing the noise, gave them a chase. During the course of chase, the fourth accused opened fire towards the chasing crowd which injured one Jagpal, who was also chasing the accused persons. At the spur of moment Constable Veer Singh and Constable Rajendra Singh who were coming from the opposite side arrested one of the accused namely Tek Chand at a distance of 50 paces from the place of occurrence. The other three accused persons made their escape good. A country made pistol-Ext.1 and two cartridges-Ext. 2 and Ext. 3 were recovered from Tek Chand. Om Prakash being badly injured by gun shots died on the spot. The written report of the occurrence-Ext. Ka. 2 was prepared and was given at the police station on the basis of which the case was registered at G.D.No.16 on 24.5.1979. S.I. Ashutosh Gautam-P.W.-6 went on the spot and prepared the inquest report Ext. Ka 5 and other connected police papers. The injured Jagpal also arrived at the police station and he was medically examined on 24.5.1979 at 3.30 p.m. by Dr. Akhtar Ali-P.W. 5. The investigation was assigned to S.I. D.S. Tyagi P.W.-8 on 28.5.1979 who after conclusion of investigation submitted charge-sheets Ext. Ka. 11 against four accused persons Nepal Singh, Bedu, Tekchand and Jaipal under section 302 and 307 of I.P.C. and another charge-sheet Ext. Ka. 20 under Section 25 Arms Act against accused Tek Chand only. Later on accused Jaipal absconded so his trial was separated from rest of the accused persons vide order dated 15.1.1982 of Sessions Court. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the court of sessions court for trial.
6. Before the court of sessions the prosecution in order to prove its case produced 11
