Back
2017 Supreme(All) 1974
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
TARUN AGARWALA, RAJUL BHARGAVA, JJ.
Mahendra Singh – Appellant
Vs.
State Of U.P. – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3392 of 2006
Decided on : 12-10-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Lav Srivastava, Gauri Singh, Madan Gopal Sharma, Mamta Singh, Nikhil Kumar, R.S.Mishra, Rajneesh Sharma, Sudhindra Kumar Singh, V.P. Srivastava
Headnote:
S.C./S.T. Act - Murder - 3(2)5 of S.C./S.T. Act - [302/504 IPC, 3(2)5 of S.C./S.T. Act] - The court discussed the reliability of the prosecution case, medical evidence, and the timing of the first information report. It found that the prosecution proved its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also addressed the illegality of convicting the appellant under section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, stating that the maximum sentence prescribed had already been awarded under the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of the deceased, who opposed the appellant's attempt to cut a tree. The prosecution's case was supported by eye-witness testimony and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of murder based on the prosecution's evidence and rejected the defense's arguments regarding the timing of the first information report and alleged medical conflicts.
Issues: Reliability of the prosecution case, timing of the first information report, alleged medical conflicts, and the legality of convicting the appellant under section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that minor discrepancies in witness statements do not undermine their credibility. It also clarified the inapplicability of convicting the appellant under section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction and sentences under section 302/504 IPC were affirmed, while the conviction and sentence under the S.C./S.T. Act were set aside. The appellant's modified conviction warrants were to be sent to the jail for serving the sentence.
RAJUL BHARGAVA, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 22.5.2006 passed by Special Judge, (S.C./S.T. Act) District Banda in Special Sessions Trial No.90 of 2005 (State of U.P. Vs. Mahendra Singh), under Sections 302/504 IPC and 3(2)5 of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Rajapur, District Banda, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine he has to further undergo additional six months rigorous imprisonment.
2. In the instant appeal, the case of the prosecution may be summarized as under :-
That on 30.1.1995 at 5.15 P.M. a first information report was lodged at Police Station Rajapur District Banda regarding an incident which is said to have taken place on 30.1.1995 at about 4 P.M.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that about 20 days before the incident the accused-appellant Mahendra Singh forcibly wanted to cut the Neem tree situated in the field of the informant's grand father. However, Mahaveer (deceased) and did not permit him to cut the tree. On that day the accused-appellant left the place. However, on 30.1.1995 he again came at the tube-well of the first informant at about 4 P.M. armed with his licensed double barrel gun. The informant's grand father looking to his agitated mood permitted him to cut the tree, but it was strongly opposed by his father Mahaveer (deceased). Upon it, the accused started hurling abuses and fired on the deceased which hit on his near the neck due to which he fell down. Then the accused-appellant again fired which hit on the left side of chest. The informant and other family members who are present there had witnessed to the incident. Then the first informant Bachcha scribed first information report in the village and got it registered as Case Crime No.12 of 1995, under Sections 302/504 IPC and 3(2) 5 of S.C./S.T. Act, police station Rajapur District Banda.
4. After the registration of first information report, the investigation was taken over by P.W.3 Sub-Inspector Prasuram Verma posted as Station Officer at police station Rajapur, District Banda. After thorough investigation he submitted charge sheet against the sole accused-appellant Mahendra Singh under Section 302/504 IPC and 3(2)5 of S.C./S.T. Act. After committal of the case to the Court of Session the same was tried by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Banda, who vide impugned judgment and order found the appellant guilty of the charges and sentenced him as noted above.
5. In order to prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution examined six witnesses in all. Out of which P.W.1 Bachcha is the first informant as an eye-witness, P.W.2 Budhraj eye-witness of the incident and remaining four witnesses are formal witnesses. P.W.3 Sub-Inspector Prasuram Verma is the Investigating Officer, P.W.4 Dr. Bharat Bhushan Kathoriya conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Mahaveer on 31.1.1995 at 3.30 P.M. P.W.5 C.P. 85 Hariom is an eye-witness of the recovery of licensed D.B.B.L gun of the appellant recovered by P.W.3 from his house on 8.2.1995. P.W.6 Swatantra Kumar Clerk, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda proved the statement of witness Shiv Balak recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by Judicial Magistrate Sri Ram Narayan Maurya.
6. Thereafter the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has categorically denied the facts stated by the prosecution witnesses about the recovery of his D.B.B.L. Gun. He has stated that he had no knowledge about it and the recovery shown by the prosecution is false. He has stated that he has been implicated on account of enmity. It may be noted that on being questioned as to whether he wants to be lead any defence evidence he stated in the affirmative. However, the fact remains that the appellant did not examine any witness in defence.
7. Learned Special Judge after hearing the arguments of both
