Back
2017 Supreme(All) 1519
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Shashi Kant Gupta, Rekha Dikshit, JJ.
Jasveer Singh & Another - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 7200 of 2009 c/w Criminal Appeal No. 7199 of 2009
Decided On : 08-05-2017
Criminal Appeal No. 7200 of 2009
For the Appellant : Abhitab Kumar Tiwari, Amit Raghav, Anil Raghav, Indra Kumar Chaturvedi, P.K.Singh, Pavan Kumar Mishra, R.K.Tiwari, Saurabh Gour.
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate, Brij Lal Shukla.
Criminal Appeal No. 7199 of 2009
For the Appellant : Abhitab Kumar Tiwari, Anil Raghav, Indra Kumar Chaturvedi.
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and corroborating evidence in criminal cases, especially in cases relying on the testimony of a sole eye-witness. The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving the case beyond doubt and the need for a plausible motive for the crime.
Headnote:
I.P.C. - Murder - 302, 201 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the prosecution's case against the appellants under Section 302 I.P.C. for the murder of the deceased and under Section 201 I.P.C. for causing disappearance of evidence. The judgment also highlighted the contradictions in the testimony of the sole eye-witness and the lack of corroborating evidence, leading to the acquittal of the accused appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused appellants murdered the deceased in the evening of 25.09.1995. The sole eye-witness, P.W. 1, claimed to have witnessed the incident and reported it the next morning. The appellants denied the allegations, stating that the deceased had enmity with many people and might have been killed by one of his enemies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was based solely on the testimony of the sole eye-witness, which was contradictory and lacked corroboration. The court also noted discrepancies in the timing of events and the lack of evidence to support the prosecution's story. As a result, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond doubt and acquitted the appellants.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the sole eye-witness testimony, the lack of corroborating evidence, discrepancies in the timing of events, and the absence of a plausible motive for the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of reliable and corroborating evidence, contradictions in the testimony of the sole eye-witness, discrepancies in the timing of events, and the absence of a plausible motive for the crime. These factors led the court to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond doubt, resulting in the acquittal of the appellants.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment and order convicting the appellants and acquitted them of the charges. The appellants were granted the benefit of doubt, and their personal and surety bonds were cancelled.
Shashi Kant Gupta, J.
1. Both the aforementioned appeals assail the correctness of the common judgment and order dated 23.11.2009 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 6, Meerut State of U.P. v. Jasveer Singh and others in S.T. No. 214 of 1996, State v. Jasvir Singh and others, arising out of case crime No. 421 of 1995, wherein the accused Jasveer Singh, Rajkumar and Satish Singh were convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment and also pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof one year’s additional imprisonment. The appellants have also been convicted under Section 201 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, and in default awarded further, six months imprisonment to each.
2. Since both the aforementioned criminal appeals arise out of the common judgement and order dated 16.11.2009, whereby the appellants of both the appeals have been awarded life imprisonment, they are being heard and decided by a common judgement.
3. Narrated concisely, the prosecution case against the appellants is that in the evening of 25.09.1995, Jasveer in inebriated state abused the complainant Omkar Singh and his real brother Ompal (deceased), who warned him from doing so. Jasveer went away threatening them with dire consequences. Thereafter, when the complainant along with his brother was coming back towards his house from his gher, appellant accused Jasveer, Rajkumar and Satish armed with rifle, farsa and country-made pistol arrived near the gher of Jaipal. Jasveer and Satish fired gun shots causing instantaneous death of the deceased. Complainant fled away from the scene of occurrence. When he returned alongwith Rajaram and Billu at the place of occurrence, he found a lot of blood on the spot and the body of the deceased missing.
4. The written report of the incident (Exhibit ka-1) was lodged at the police station at 05: 15 am on 26.09.1995 by Omkar. On the basis of report, chik/F.I.R. (Exhibit ka-4) was drawn, necessary entries were made in GD (Exhibit ka-5), panchayatnama (Exhibit ka-6), recovery memo (Exhibit ka-12), site plan (Exhibit ka-13) were prepared, after investigation, the charge-sheet (Exhibit ka-14) was filed in the court against the appellants accused.
5. To bring home the guilt of the appellants, prosecution has examined seven witnesses. The documents as per list 222-kha relating to the criminal history of the deceased, have been adduced in defence.
6. P.W. 1 Omkar, the real brother of deceased stated that in the evening of 25.09.1995, the accused Jasveer abused both of them. His brother warned Jasveer, and he went home giving them life threats. On the very same night, at about 09.30 pm when both the brothers were returning home from their Gher, the accused Jasveer, Rajkumar and Satish arrived at the spot and fired gun shots at the deceased with a rifle and the country-made pistol in front of Jaipal’s Gher. The gun shots were fired by Jasveer and Satish while Rajkumar held Ompal. His brother died on the spot due to gun shot injuries. He fled away from the scene of occurrence but soon returned with Rajaram and Billu who met him on the way. But on reaching the spot found the body of the deceased missing. The body was recovered by the police at 8 O’clock from Rajbaha (at point ‘D’ as per the site plan) situated about 1 km. away from the place (point C as per site plan) from where the body was thrown in the Rajbaha. Point ‘C’ in the site plan has been shown to be about 100 steps away from the place of occurrence (point X as per site plan). He has also proved the recovery memo of torch (Exhibit ka-2), i.e. the only source of light at the time of incident.
7. P.W. 2 Raja Ram has stated in his oral testimony that the deceased was his nephew and the said incident took place on 25.09.1995. At around 10 P.M., the complainant told him that the accused persons had shot Ompal dead in front of Jaipal’s gher. A day before when Jasveer abused Ompal he had warned
