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

2017 Supreme(All) 1854

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)

Advocates:
Counsel :
J.N. Misra, Mahadeo Singh Chandel and Rajeev Lochan Shukla for the Appellant; A.G.A for the Respondent.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 164—Confesional Statement—Whether alleged confessional statement of accused recorded before S.D.M. purported to be under Section 164 Cr. P.C. can have any legal sanctity?—Secondly, whether on basis of aforesaid statement, police could have registered a case?—S.D.M. is a public authority—Cr. P.C. empowers S.D.M. with jurisdiction to take preventive as well as remedial action in accordance with provisions of Code—Statement given by accused before S.D.M. may not be treated, as a confessional statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. in strict legal terms but same is an statement by an accused (accomplice) before a public authority—Therefore, its credibility cannot be wiped out for purpose of registering a criminal case against accused persons.

       (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.

       

JUDGMENT :

(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


































































































































































































































































































































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