Back
2019 Supreme(All) 503
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD BENCH AT LUCKNOW
RITU RAJ AWASTHI, VIRENDRA KUMAR, JJ.
Bindey - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1500 of 2005
Decided On : 22-04-2019
Rishad Murtaza, Adv., Alok Singh, Adv., Altaf Mansoor, Adv., Soniya Mishra, Adv.
The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Bindey had shot Lalmani. The court relied on the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, which was corroborated by medical evidence. The court found that the defense of false implication was not tenable as there was no evidence of enmity between the parties.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - [SECTION 302 IPC] - [FACT OF THE CASE] - [FINDING OF THE COURT] - [ISSUES] - [RATIO DECIDENDI] - [FINAL DECISION] - [MAIN LEGAL POINT] - [CATEGORY] - [SUB-CATEGORY]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant Bindey was convicted for the murder of Lalmani. The prosecution's case was that Bindey had shot Lalmani with a country-made pistol in the presence of eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-2. Bindey's defense was that he was falsely implicated in the case due to enmity with the complainant's family.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court convicted Bindey based on the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, which was corroborated by medical evidence. The court rejected Bindey's defense of false implication, finding that there was no evidence of enmity between the parties.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Bindey had shot Lalmani? 2. Whether Bindey's defense of false implication was tenable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Bindey had shot Lalmani. The court relied on the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, which was corroborated by medical evidence. The court found that the defense of false implication was not tenable as there was no evidence of enmity between the parties. 2. The court also considered the fact that Bindey had been released from prison after serving his sentence. The court held that this did not affect the validity of the conviction, as the appeal was still pending.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of Bindey.
1. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of appellant Bindey assailing impugned judgment and order dated 5.10.2005 delivered by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 164 of 2001 (State Vs. Bindey and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 302, 324 and 504 IPC of Police Station Maholi, District Sitapur. Learned trial court has convicted the appellant Bindey for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and amount of Rs. 5,000/- has been imposed with default stipulation to serve out additional imprisonment for six months.
2. The trial court has acquitted the appellant Bindey for offence punishable under Sections 323/34 IPC and co-accused persons Cheena and Smt. Ramkali alias Bhutti (Bhutto) have also been acquitted for offence punishable under Section 302/34 and 323/34 IPC. The State Government of U.P. has not preferred any appeal against acquittal of the appellant Bindey and co-accused persons Cheena and Smt. Bhutti (Bhutto) for the aforesaid offences.
3. As per prosecution version, the complainant Patte son of Niranjan submitted a written report (Ex. Ka-1) on 30.6.2000 at Police Station Kotwali Maholil, District Sitapur. On the basis of written report submitted by the complainant check FIR (Ex. Ka-4) was registered on 30.6.2000 at 16.00 hours and crime number 198 of 2000 for offence punishable under Sections 307, 324 and 504 IPC was registered at Kotwali Maholi, District Sitapur. The G.D. of registration of crime (Ex. Ka-5) was also prepared.
4. The complainant has narrated in written report that he is the resident of Village Bhatpurwa within limits of Police Station Maholi, Sitapur. On 29.6.2000, there was an altercation between the complainant and Cheena regarding tying of bullocks. The appellant Bindey son of Laltu wielded with country-made pistol came on 30.6.2000 at 12:00 p.m. and fired shot on his brother Lalmani. The country-made pistol was snatched by the family members of the deceased. The co-accused Cheena brought Kanta in the meanwhile and assaulted on the head of Smt. Moorha, who is wife of the complainant. Smt. Ramkali alias Bhutti (Bhutto), who is wife of Cheena was wielded with Bhali. The complainant brought his brother and wife at the police station.
5. The complainant also submitted one country-made pistol of .12 bore in which empty cartridge was stuck at the police station while he lodged the F.I.R. Constable Dinesh Kumar Shukla prepared recovery memo (Ex. Ka-2). It is mentioned in this recovery memo that there was fire pin mark on this cartridge.
6. After the death of the deceased, this crime was converted for offence punishable under Section 302, 323 and 504 IPC on 4.7.2000.
7. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnesses. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Ex. Ka-9). The deceased in injured state was medically examined. His report dated 30.6.2000 for medical examination and injury report (Ex. Ka-6) has been proved by the concerned doctor. Likewise, the report of the medical examination and injury report of Smt. Moorha alias Nisha wife of Patte has been proved as (Ex. Ka-7) by the concerned doctor (PW-5). PW-5 Dr. Sharad Chandra has proved both these injury reports.
8. The Investigating Officer has also recorded the statement of the deceased Lalmani in injured state and PW-6 Investigating Officer has proved this statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as Ex. Ka-8. The underwear of the deceased was sent to forensic science laboratory, Mahanagar, Lucknow for medical analysis. The Joint Director of Forensic Science Laboratory has submitted report dated 26.12.2002 and found on big parts of underwear, human blood. This report was not challenged during the course of trial on behalf of the accused persons. Therefore, it is admissible in evidence under Section 293 Cr.P.C. because Forensic Science Laboratory is laboratory of State of U.P.
9. On the death o
