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

2018 Supreme(All) 2089

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI AND J.J. MUNIR, JJ.
SATYANARAIN @ BABLOO ....Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. ....Respondent
(Jail Appeal No. 4304 of 2013, decided on 25th October, 2018)

Advocates:
Counsel :
From Jail and Pradeep Chandra Tripathi (A.C.) for the Appellant; A.G.A. for the Respondent.

Headnote:(Indian) Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302/34 – Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(2)(v) – (Indian) Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 134 – Murder – Conviction – Sustainability of – Prosecution case rests on deposition of PW-1-brother of deceased – Testimony of a relative must be scrutinized carefully – In an altercation involving both sides deceased sustained fatal injuries, about which no exculpatory explanation even pleaded – Fact that PW-1 is the brother of deceased does not ipso facto make him interested witness – Testimony of PW-1 found consistent about date, time, place and manner of assault – Prosecution successfully proved its case case on the consistent ocular testimony of PW-1 – Impugned conviction upheld.[Paras 21 to 52]

       Result; Appeal Dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Jail appeal against conviction under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act for murder of Subhash, with sentences of life imprisonment and fines (!) [25001006690002] - Prosecution case: Altercation started when Juglu abused and assaulted deceased for refusing work; later Juglu, appellant Babloo (pistol), and father Paliwal attacked, with Babloo shooting chest and Juglu stabbing arm [25001006690002][25001006690003][25001006690022] - Deceased died en route to hospital; case converted from 307 to 302 IPC; inquest, autopsy confirmed gunshot shock/haemorrhage as cause [25001006690006][25001006690007] - PW-1 (brother/informant) sole supporting eyewitness; PW-2 (Bhikham) hostile; medical evidence corroborated PW-1's account of gunshot entry/exit and incised wound [25001006690013][25001006690020][25001006690021][25001006690049] - Defence highlighted cross-case (93A/96) for appellant's injury, unexplained in FIR/exam-in-chief, but court held no exculpatory plea raised; injuries on both sides indicate altercation without private defence claim [25001006690043][25001006690046][25001006690047] - Section 134 Evidence Act: No minimum number of witnesses required; quality over quantity; relative not ipso facto interested witness [25001006690034][25001006690035][25001006690037] - Conviction sustainable on reliable solitary testimony of relative after careful scrutiny, corroborated by medical evidence; appeal dismissed [25001006690040][25001006690049][25001006690051]

What is the sustainability of a murder conviction based on the solitary testimony of a relative witness?


JUDGMENT

Hon’ble J.J. Munir, J.—This jail appeal is directed against a judgment and order of Sri S.P. Arvind, the then Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj, dated 5.8.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 231 of 1999, State v. Babloo @ Satyanarain (arising out of Case Crime No. 93/96), under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Tirwa, District Kannauj. By the said judgment and order, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellant, of offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, and, sentenced him in the following manner: (1) for the offence under Section 302 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for life, with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-; (2) for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, rigorous imprisonment for life, with a fine in the sum of Rs. 5000/-. Both sentences, have been ordered to run concurrently. In the event of default in payment of fine, imposed on the two counts, an additional term of simple imprisonment for three months, and, a month and a half, in that order, has been ordered.

2. Heard Sri Pradeep Chandra Tripathi, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Sri Amrit Raj Chaurasiya, learned A.G.A. for the State, and, perused the record.

3. The prosecution case is that the elder brother of the first informant, and, now deceased, the late Subhash was employed as a agricultural labourer on the fields of one Krishna Dutt Paliwal, a native of the parties’ village. It is asserted that in the night hours he was engaged in thrashing of the harvested wheat crop on the thrasher, and, in the morning hours returned home, after a whole night’s work. He had settled down to rest when Paliwal’s son, Juglu alias Daya Shankar, came over to the informant’s home, at about 10 in the morning hours, and asked his brother, the deceased Subhash, to report back to work. To this, the deceased said that he was very tired, and, would not go back to work, right away. Upon those words, Juglu hurling abuses at his brother, took out his slippers that he employed to beat up the deceased, throwing him to the ground. This assault was objected to by the deceased, whereupon the informant, besides one Indal son of Banwari, and, another Bhikham son of Hiralal, both natives of his village, intervened and dissipated the altercation. Thereupon, Juglu went away home, abusing the deceased.

4. A little later, when the deceased alongwith others, was standing by the shop of one Moti Lal and talking amongst themselves, Babloo (the appellant), carrying a country-made pistol, Juglu carrying a knife, and, their father, Krishna Dutt Paliwal arrived, and, Paliwal exhorted his sons to assault, saying in vernacular, “Maro Salo Ko Bachne Na Paaye”. Hearing that, Juglu assaulted the deceased with his knife, whereas Babloo opened fire. The bullet hit the deceased in the chest and he collapsed to the ground, clutching his chest. The accused moved away homewards, holding out threats. While retreating, Juglu was heard to say, that they would see whatever is to come. The informant, while reporting the matter to the police said, that his brother was in a critical condition, and, natives of the village had arranged a vehicle and were conveying him to Kannauj. Necessary action by the police was requested. The written information aforesaid, is marked as Ex. Ka-1.

5. It is on the basis of the aforesaid written First Information that a case was registered on 13.4.1996, at half past mid-day, giving rise to Case Crime No. 93 of 1996, under Section 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. A chik FIR was drawn up at the Police Station, marked as Ex. Ka-4, the substance of which was recorded in the G.D. of the Station, marked as Ex. Ka-5.

6. The injured while being rushed to medical aid at Kannauj, was requisitioned by the police for a medico-legal examination of his in




















































































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top