Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : BHARAT BHUSHAN AND ALOK KUMAR MUKHERJEE, JJ.
AMRIK SINGH AND ANOTHER ....Appellants
Versus
STATE OF U.P. ….Respondent
(Criminal Appeal No. 739 of 1983, decided on 13th January, 2017)
(B) (Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Murder—Trial, Sentencing and other issues—Identity of accused—Sufficient light—Accused and victim/complainant are dependants of same family—Identification cannot be ruled out—Further source of light has been introduced as Patromax which was burning at relevant time—Was largely sufficient for accused persons for committing offence—Hence plea that light was insufficient for identification of accused rejected.
(C) (Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Murder—Trial, Sentencing and other issues—Proof—Non-recovery of weapon of assault—Cannot be considered to be sole ground for discarding prosecution version where victims of offence have sustained fire arm injuries which finds corroboration of medical testimony.
(D) (Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Murder—Trial, Sentencing and other issues—Witnesses—Related witnesses—Evidentiary value—Merely on ground that witnesses are related, their testimony cannot be discarded—On fact court is enjoined with duty to scrutinize testimony of related witnesses with utmost care and caution—Hence witnesses being related to victim is of not much significance.
(E) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 174—Inquest report—Object of—Only to notice as to whether murder committed was homicidal in nature or not—Mentioning of crime number is not condition precedent for authenticating inquest report.
(F) (Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 3, 45—Murder—Inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence—Ocular evidence has primacy—If there is some variation, it would be too immaterial and inconsequential to give any benefit to appellants.
(G) (Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Murder—Trial, Sentencing and other issues—Appreciation of evidence—Discrepancies, contradictions—Every discrepancy, contradiction and variation in prosecution evidence may not be sufficient to adversely affect prosecution case—Sometimes, variation merely indicates that witnesses have not been tutored and are natural—So long as core of prosecution evidence is intact and trustworthy, minor discrepancies in prosecution evidence are not sufficient to discard otherwise trustworthy testimony of prosecution witnesses.
Appeal Dismissed.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Kumar Mukherjee, J.)
1- This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.3.1983, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in S.T. No.78 of 1979 (State Vs. Amrik Singh and another) arising out of Crime No. 83 of 1978, P.S. Parikshatgarh, District Meerut, convicting and sentencing the appellants Amrik Singh and Har Kirat Singh on both the counts under Section 302 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life.
2- The appellants Amrik Singh and Har Kirat Singh have filed this appeal against the aforementioned judgment and order dated 22.3.1983 on the ground that the learned trial court below has erred in believing the prosecution case and the evidence examined in support thereof and that the conviction of the appellant is against the weight of evidence on record.
3- Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 1.4.1978 at about 11:00 P.M. informant PW-1 Gurnam Singh S/O Preetam Singh gave a written report at police station Parikshitgarh, Sub District Mawana, District Meerut, stating therein that his aunt Ramdeyi Ran Singh had three daghters who were living in their marital homes, hence the informant and his brother Sant Singh took care of their aunt. One daughter of Ramdeyi, Nepal Kaur transferred some land of Ramdeyi to her son Rajinder's name. Around one and half years ago from the date of filing the FIR, Ramdeyi willed her land to the son of informant Gurnam Singh and willed 2 bigha pucca land to PW- 1 Gurnam Singh. On 13 February 1978 Rajinder who was the son of Nepal Kaur transferred his share of land to Amreek Singh, Udham Singh and Har Kirat Singh. Due to this, the informant and his brother entered into a legal dispute with the aforementioned people. The date of the same case was fixed on 31.3.1978 in Mawana and on 1.4.1978 the case was put up in Meerut Civil Court. The informant's brother Sant Singh went to attend the court for the same. On the day of the alleged incident at around 9:00 PM the informant and his brother Sant Singh went to the Kohloo (Jaggery crusher) of Harpal Singh to process their jaggery. Jahariya and his son Jagram and PW-2 Ramesh worked on the same Kolhu. There was a gas lantern in the kolhu and while the informant was talking to Harpal Singh the kohloo owner, Amreek Singh and his brother Har Kirat Singh came with their guns and started abusing the informant and his brother saying "Aaj inhe mukadmey baazi ka maza chakhate hai" (Today we will teach them a lesson for resorting to litigation). Amrik Singh and Har Kirat Singh fired many shots at Sant Singh the brother of the informant which hit Sant Singh and Jagram the labourer at kolhu. Ramesh also suffered injury on head in the process of saving his brother Jagram. Sant Singh died on the spot due to firearm injuries. The FIR futher states that Harpal Singh, Valuvaan Singh, Raj Singh, Rai Singh and several others witnessed the incident. When these people exhorted, the assailants, Amrik Singh and Har Kirat Singh ran away firing gunshots.
4- Subsequently an FIR was registered as case Crime No.83 of 1978 under section 302 IPC, which was entered into the General Diary. Investigation was entrusted to the then Circle Officer. After concluding the investigation charge-sheet was submitted by him against the accused persons. After procuring the attendance of the present appellants, the case was committed to the Court of Session, where they were charged under Section 302 IPC. The accused-appellants denied the charge and pleaded not guilty. They further stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity and claimed to be tried.
5- In order to prove the charge, besides other papers, prosecution has filed written report (Ext. Ka-1), Postmortem report of Sant Singh (Ext.Ka-2), Postmortem report of Jagram (Ext. Ka-3), Injury report of Jagram (Ext.Ka-4), Injury report of Ramesh (Ext.Ka-5), chik report dated 11.8.1981 (Ext. Ka-6), Copy of the General
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
