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

2016 Supreme(All) 97

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SHASHI KANT GUPTA AND MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, JJ.
DALVEER ....Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. ....Respondent
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2860, 3037, 3039 and 2924 of 2010, decided on 20th January, 2016)

Advocates:
Counsel :
P.N. Mishra, Apul Misra, Alok Ranjan Misra, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Ravindra Sharma, Mohd. Khalid, Brijesh Sahai and Sarvesh Kumar for the Appellant; A.G.A., V.P. Srivastava, Lav Srivastava, R.K. Srivastava, Rajul Bhargava, Upendra Upadhyaya, Deepak Kumar Pandey, O.P. Singh and H.N. Singh for the Respondent.

Headnote:(Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302, 147 and 148—Murder—Conviction—There is vital omission in site plan, contradiction with regard to presence of cartridges on spot and inconsistency between ocular version and medical evidence creates a great suspicion about prosecution story—Lodging of prompt FIR raises suspicion—All eye-witnesses had animus against accused persons and their presence on spot has been found doubtful—Reasons given by Trial Court are not sufficient to convict appellants/accused—Impugned order set aside. [Paras 39 and 40]

       Result; Appeals Allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—The aforesaid criminal appeals have been preferred by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 26.4.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Firozabad in Sessions Trial No. 29 of 2000 arising out of Crime No. 225 of 1996, Police Station Jasrana, District Firozabad convicting the appellants of charges under Sections 302, 147 and 148 IPC and sentencing them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in case of default of payment of fine to further undergo one year’s S.I., six months R.I. And fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo 2 months S.I., one year R.I and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo 3 months S.I respectively under the aforementioned charges. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. The facts of the case as unfolded by the complainant Nathu Ram P.W. 1 are that his brother Harvilas son of Kalicharan Yadav resident of Khamini alongwith Jagdish son of Raghuwar Dayal Yadav resident of Nagla Aam, was proceeding to village Khamini from Padam on his Motor cycle and the informant who was also on the way to the village was behind them riding his cycle. As soon as the deceased Harvilash reached the “Jwar” field of Bal Karan at 6 p.m. the accused persons namely Kamlesh Kumar and Vimlesh Kumar alias Bhura sons of Durveen Singh and Dalveer Singh son of Maniram, Nekse and his son Pradeep and the elder son of Betal suddenly emerged from the “Jwar” field and started firing with their country-made pistols upon the deceased Harvilash, as a result of which, his brother Har Vilash fell down bleeding profusely and died on the spot and Jagdish Kumar, the pillion rider ran off shouting from there. Hearing the sound of firing, Sarvesh Kumar son of Satish Chandra, Ashok Kumar son of Ram Autar Singh and other villagers ran shouting towards the place of occurrence, upon which the culprits ran away from there firing in the air towards the village Syaypur and out of fear they did not chase the culprits. In the year 1984, Harvilash (deceased) had lodged an FIR with regard to the killings of Betal son of Fauran Singh, Raj Bahadur son of Nekse and Munna son of Jaiveer Singh in public encounter, due to which, family members and relatives of the victims became inimical and wanted to kill the deceased, (who had lodged the FIR).

3. According to the FIR, the incident had occurred at 6 p.m. and the FIR was lodged on 26.9.1996 at about 6.45 p.m. under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC in Case Crime No. 225 of 1996, Police Station Jasrana, District Firozabad against the accused Kamlesh Kumar, Vimlesh Kumar @ Bhura, Dalveer, Nekse, Pradeep and the son of Betal (Bhola) and the investigation of the said case was initially conducted by the Police Station Jasrana and thereafter the investigation was transferred to the C.B.C.I.D, who submitted the charge-sheet against all the accused persons except Dalveer. However, Dalveer was later on summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C and was made an accused and charges were also framed against him alongwith the other accused persons. They pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined P.W. 1-Nathu Ram, the eye-witness/first informant/cousin brother of the deceased, P.W. 2-Jagdish Kumar, the eye-witness/brother in law (Chachera Sala) of the deceased, P.W. 3-Sarvesh, the scribe of the FIR/eye-witness, P.W. 4-Dr. S.L. Ghuley, who conducted the Post-mortem of the deceased, P.W. 5-G.L. Kuril, who prepared Inquest Report, P.W. 6-Amar Singh, S.I., who proved chik, FIR and G.D., P.W. 7-N.M. Bhatt, Investigating Officer, who proved the recovery memo and site plan and P.W. 8-Bhaskar Singh proved the charge-sheet as secondary evidence. The investigation which was initially conducted by the local police station was subsequently transferred to C.B.C.I.D. The defence did not produce any oral evidence. The statement unde




































































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