ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SHASHI KANT GUPTA AND RAJEEV MISRA, JJ.
RAM AUTAR AND OTHERS – Appellants
Versus
STATE OF U.P. – Respondent
(Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 1984, decided on 19th December, 2017)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 306 (iv)(a)—Tender of pardon—Accomplice whose statement was recorded under Section 306(iv)(a) Cr. P.C. was already enlarged on bail by sessions Court order dated 4.5.1979, which is prior to date on which statement of accomplice as approval was recorded in terms of Section 306 (iv)(a) Cr. P.C.—And such, case is covered by second part i.e. Section 306 (iv)(b) Cr. P.C.—Order passed by Sessions Court enlarging accomplice on bail was never challenged—Thus, words "occurring" in Secton 306 (iv)(b) "if not already released on bail" are fully attracted in case.
(C) (Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302/34, 201 and 202—Murder—Conviction—Statement of approver 'D' recorded under Section 306 (iv)(a) Cr. P.C., is not only admissible in evidence but also credible—Extra judicial confession made by accused person before PW-4 and PW-3 are not liable to discarded—Recovery of weapons used in murder of deceased is not found to be faulty or inadmissible in evidence by virtue of Section 27 of Evidence Act—And, statement of approver stands corroborated in material particular with extra judicial confession as well as recovery of murder weapons and other materials—Conviction maintained.
Appeal Dismissed.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.)
1. The present criminal appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 12.1.1984, passed by the Special Judge, Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 Banda, in Sessions Trial No. 344 of 1979 (State Vs. Ram Autar and three others), whereby the accused appellant no. 1 Ram Autar, along with the accused appellant no. 2 Ram Deen, were convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Each of the aforesaid accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They were further convicted under Section 201 IPC, and each of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. Accused appellant no. 3 Rameshwar, along with accused appellant no. 4 Gulab, were convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 109 IPC, and each of them were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. They were further convicted under Section 202 IPC, and each of them were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The sentence awarded to each of the accused appellants were to run concurrently.
2. From the record, it transpires that the present criminal appeal was filed by the above mentioned four accused appellants on 17.1.1984. They were enlarged on bail during the pendency of the present criminal appeal vide order dated 8.3.1984. However, on account of the death of the accused appellant no. 3 Rameshwar, on 23.1.2014 and accused appellant no. 4 Gulab, on 21.2.2016 the appeal stood abated against these two appellants vide order dated 11.12.2006. Thus the present Criminal Appeal survives only in respect of the accused appellant no. 1 Ram Autar, and the accused appellant no. 2 Ram Deen.
3. Sri Rajeev Lochan Shukla assisted by Sri Amber Khanna and Sharda Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the accused-appellant nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Rajiv Sharma, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State were heard at length.
4. The complainant Sri Chakra Pani Srivastava was represented by Mr. V.C. Tiwari, Senior Advocate. Both the complainant and his counsel are reported to be dead.
5. The criminal proceedings giving rise to the present criminal appeal came into motion, when a written missing person report dated 26.3.1979 (Ex. Ka. 48) was submitted by Sri Chakra Pani Srivastava, father of Brijesh Kumar Srivastava with the police of Police Station- Pailani, District, Banda, alleging therein that his son Brijesh Kumar Srivastava is missing since the morning of 3.3.1979. According to the aforesaid report, it was alleged that Brijesh Kumar Srivastava aged about 20 years, is a student of B.A first year. He had come from Banda to his father's place who was working as Principal at Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru Akhand Inter College, Chandwara, Banda. Sri Chakra Pani Srivastava left for Banda on 2.3.1979, leaving his son who was staying with him in the residential quarter allotted to him as Principal and situate in the premises of the Intermediate college. Sri Chakra Pani Srivastava returned to the Intermediate college in the evening of 6.3.1979. Thereafter the Daftari Gulab Prasad, as well as the Chaukidar Rameshwar informed the Principal Sri Chakra Pani Srivastava that his son Brijesh Kumar who was wearing a coat, shirt, bell bottom pant and high heal black shoes, woke up around 6:00 am and requested the Chaukidar Rameshwar to open the gate as he has to attend natures call. At this Juncture the Daftari Gulab Prasad, who was also going to attend nature's call opened the gate. Brijesh Kumar also went out but did not return. Since 6.3.1979, Sri Chakra Pani Srivastava has been searching for his son. On 26.3.1979, one Umesh Chandra Sharma working as Assistant Clerk in the intermediate College informed Sri Chakra Pani Srivastava that a Coat pant, shoes and other articles have been recovered from the bank of Yamuna river, which have been collected by some residents of the village. Finding similarity with the description of the clothes and articles so recovered
Balwant Kaur v. Unior Terriotory, Chandigarh
Bhagwan Singh V/s. State of Punjab
Bhiva Doulu Patil v. State of Maharashtra
Dagdi & Ors. v. State of Maharashta
Devendra Pal Singh V. State of NCT of Delhi and Another
Hari Charan Kurmi v. State of Bihar
Haroon Haji Abdulla v. State of Maharashra
Jnanendra nath Ghose vs. The State of West Bengal
K. I. Pavunny Vs. Assistant Collector (Head Quarter), Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin
Lachhi Ram Vs. State of Punjab
Laxmipat Choraria V. State of Maharashtra
LT. Commander Pascal Fernandes v. State of Maharashtra
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and another Vs. State of Maharshtra
Rameshwar v. State of Rajashthan
Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana
Sarwan Singh V. State of Punjab
State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh
State of Punjab Vs. Gurdeep Singh
State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony
Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, 1995 (Supp) 1 SCC 80
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.