Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Vimlesh Kumar Shukla, Om Prakash-VII, JJ.
Ankur - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2008
Decided On : 13-05-2014
CRIMINAL APPEAL - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - MURDER - ARMS ACT - FACTUAL SITUATION - CREDIBLE EVIDENCE - MOTIVE - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - INDEPENDENT WITNESS - HOSTILE WITNESS - PRE-CONCERTED PLAN - ELECTION - CRIMINALIZATION OF POLITICS - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - ARMS ACT - JUDICIAL MIND - RECOVERY - INDEPENDENT WITNESSES - PUBLIC ACCESS - PRINCIPLE OFFENCE - CLINCHING EVIDENCE - DISMISSAL OF APPEAL - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE UPHELD - PARTIAL ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE UNDER ARMS ACT SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:
On the eve of an election, two family members of a candidate were killed in a pre-concerted manner. The prosecution alleged that the accused-appellants, along with others, had opened fire on the victims, resulting in their deaths. The appellants denied their involvement and claimed that the prosecution story was fabricated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had established a strong case against the accused-appellants. The eyewitness accounts of the victims' family members were found to be credible and consistent with the medical evidence. The court also found that the motive for the crime was clear, as the accused-appellants were supporters of the opposing candidate in the election. The court rejected the appellants' arguments that the incident had taken place in the dark and that there were no independent witnesses. The court also found that the sanction for prosecution under the Arms Act had been obtained in accordance with the law.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established a strong case against the accused-appellants. 2. Whether the eyewitness accounts of the victims' family members were credible and consistent with the medical evidence. 3. Whether the motive for the crime was clear. 4. Whether the incident had taken place in the dark and whether there were no independent witnesses. 5. Whether the sanction for prosecution under the Arms Act had been obtained in accordance with the law.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had established a strong case against the accused-appellants based on the credible and consistent eyewitness accounts of the victims' family members, the medical evidence, and the clear motive for the crime. 2. The court rejected the appellants' arguments that the incident had taken place in the dark and that there were no independent witnesses, finding that the evidence supported the prosecution's case. 3. The court also found that the sanction for prosecution under the Arms Act had been obtained in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellants' appeal in regard to the conviction and sentence for murder and attempt to murder. The court partly allowed the appeal in regard to the conviction and sentence under the Arms Act, setting aside the impugned judgment and order.
Vimlesh Kumar Shukla, J.
Present criminal appeals are directed against the judgement and order dated 14th December, 2007 passed by Sri Lukmanul Haq, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No.407 of 2006 (State Vs. Aslam & Others) under Sections 302, 307 IPC case crime no.162 of 2005, Sessions Trial No.408 of 2006 (State Vs. Aslam) under Section 25 Arms Act case crime no.163 of 2005, Sessions Trial No.409 of 2006 (State Vs. Parminder) under Section 25 Arms Act case crime no.164 of 2005, Sessions Trial No.410 of 2006 (State Vs. Ankur alias Bobby) under Section 25 Arms Act case crime no.162 of 2005, Police Station Hapur Dehat, District Ghazibad, convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life u/s 302/34 I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 3 months; further to undergo R.I. for 7 years u/w 307/34 I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for two months; further to undergo R.I. for one year u/s 25 Arms Act to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for 15 days.
2. Brief background of the case as has been unfolded by the first informant Amit Tyagi s/o Karamveer Tyagi is to the effect that his mother Smt. Kamla Devi w/o Karamveer Tyagi was a candidate for being elected as BDC Member and election of the same was scheduled for 14.10.2005 and a day before on 13.10.2005 at about 11:30 p.m., he, his brother Sudip and cousin brother Yogendra alongwith some other co-villagers making contact with the voters were returning back to their home, at the said point of time, Sunder Singh s/o Fakir Chand Tyagi, who has recently been elected as Pradhan and has been supporting candidature of Smt. Leelawati w/o Ramraj Jatav, alongwith his son Ankur @ Bobby, Kalu s/o Karan Singh Jaat and Aslam Nut @ Islam was standing near the house of Dilsher and all of them were armed with countrymade firearm and the moment they saw the informant and others, it was mentioned by them that how they have dared to contest election in front of them, and they would get taste of the same, at the said point of time, the informant contended that they are contesting their elections and they have no concern with the informant and the moment these words were mentioned, Sunder exhorted to fire and then all four of them with the countrymade firearm with which they were armed with, opened fire and the said fire in question hit Sudip s/o Karamveer Tyagi and Yogendra @ Mantu s/o Munish Tyagi and both of them were injured and then on the spot after hearing the noise of the fire Raju s/o Surendra and Vipin s/o Hariraj and others came on the spot and have seen all of the four accused persons brandishing the countrymade firearm and fleeing away from the spot. The injured were taken for treatment and by the time they could reach the hospital, they succumbed to the injuries and it was also mentioned that in the same incident Puppal s/o Vijendra Jatav, who was also accompanying them, was also injured and accordingly, needful be done. The First Information Report was registered as Case Crime No.106 of 2005 u/s 302/307 I.P.C.
3. After the First Information Report in question was lodged chick F.I.R. was prepared by Bheekam Singh Bhati and the Investigating Officer, Samarpal Singh entrusted S.I. Ranjeet Singh for inquest proceedings being undertaken and thereafter statement of Amit Tyagi, Raju and Vipin was got recorded and the spot inspection report was also made. Statement of injured Pappal was also taken and from the crime scene blood stained earth and plain earth was also taken. Not only this, from the spot empty cartridges were also recovered and fard was prepared. On 13.10.2005, accused-appellant Ankur@ Bobby was arrested and on his pointing out a countrymade firearm of 315 bore was recovered alongwith two live cartridges on 18.10.2005 and fard was also prep
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
