IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sudhir Agarwal, Rajendra Kumar, JJ.
Mithaiya - Appellant
Vs.
State - Respondent
Jail Appeal No. 8472 of 2008; Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2000, 251 of 2000
Decided On : 09-07-2019
Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 and Section 149 – Offence of Murder – Appeal against conviction – Challenging impugned judgment accused-appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and all the sentences of accused-appellants are directed to run concurrently – Challenged – Appeal – Held, Criminal Appeal is allowed and judgment and order of convicted and sentenced, are hereby set aside – Accused-appellants acquitted of charges levelled against them – Keeping in view provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., accused-appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond of the sum of Rupees twenty-five thousand each and two reliable sureties each in the like amount before Trial Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave – Appeal allowed. [Paras75 and 76]
Facts of the case:
By the impugned judgement accused-appellants Mithaiya, Rao Raja, Phool Singh and Kailash @ Mahendra Tiwari have been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. Accused-appellants Phool Singh and Rao Raja have been sentenced under Section 147 I.P.C. to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, while accused-appellant Mithaiya and Kailash @ Mahendra Tiwari have been convicted and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C. All the sentences of accused-appellants are directed to run concurrently.
Findings of the case:
Criminal Appeal is allowed and judgment and order of convicted and sentenced, are hereby set aside – Accused-appellants acquitted of charges levelled against them – Keeping in view provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., accused-appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond of the sum of Rupees twenty-five thousand each and two reliable sureties each in the like amount before Trial Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave.
Result: Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
All these appeals have arisen from a common judgement dated 9.12.1999 and order dated 14.12.1999 passed by Sri A.K. Mishra, Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (Dacoity Affected Area Act), Lalitpur.
2. Jail Appeal No. 8472 of 2008 has been preferred by accused-appellant Mithaiya under Section 383 I.P.C. through Senior Jail Superintendent, Agra whereas Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2000 has been preferred by accused-appellant Rao Raja and Phool Singh and Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 2000 has been preferred by accused-appellant Kailash @ Mahendra Tiwari against the aforesaid judgement and order.
3. By the impugned judgement accused-appellants Mithaiya, Rao Raja, Phool Singh and Kailash @ Mahendra Tiwari have been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. Accused-appellants Phool Singh and Rao Raja have been sentenced under Section 147 I.P.C. to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, while accused-appellant Mithaiya and Kailash @ Mahendra Tiwari have been convicted and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C. All the sentences of accused-appellants are directed to run concurrently.
4. In short, factual matrix of the case, appearing from First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as 'FIR') as well as evidence available on record, may be briefly stated as under.
5. A written report Ex.Ka-3 was submitted at Police Station, Girar, District Lalitpur on 28.12.1996 by PW-1 Kapoor Singh son of Mukundi stating that on 27.12.1996, Informant along with his brother Roop Singh Tanay were sitting at Chabutara out side their house. Besides them, other persons of the village, namely, Rajbhar Tanay, Kisori Lodhi, Mitthu Tanay, Jagannath Lodhi, Ramesh Tanay, Mohan Lal Lodhi and Jagat Tanay were also present and engaged in conversation. At about 6:00 P.M. Jagbhan Singh Thakur and Mithaiya Gaderiya, residents of Rasankhera, P.S. Badagaon (M.P.) armed with guns; Rao Raja Thakur and Phool Singh Thakur, residents of village Heerapur, P.S. Girar armed with Lathi; and Kailash Pandit armed with Axe, came over there from the side of temple. Jagbhan Singh Thakur exhorted Informant's brother, Roop Singh, saying that he had been acting as Informer of police against accused. Informant's brother denied the allegation levelled against him whereupon aforesaid five miscreants, after catching hold of Roop Singh, dragged him towards Jhakar. The Informant and others followed accused persuading them to leave Roop Singh but they did not pay heed. Accused-appellants took Roop Singh towards Jungle of Ramgadha in the field of Jhundare. Informant and other villagers were at the distance of 10 to 5 paces from the accused, when accused persons reached the aforesaid field, and Jagbhan opened fire on Informant's brother at about 7:00 P.M. Consequently, Informant's brother fell down and died instantaneously. Informant and others being scared, in order to save their lives, fled away and reached village. On account of fear, they remained in village throughout night and in the morning of 28.12.1996, along with villagers, went to the field of Jhundare and found dead body of Roop Singh, lying there.
6. On the basis of written report, (Ex.Ka-1), PW-6, Constable Muharrir Pramod Kumar prepared Chick FIR (Ex.Ka-3) and registered case in General Diary (hereinafter referred to as 'G.D.') as Case Crime No. 62 of 1996 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C. After registration of FIR, Investigation commenced. PW-9, Investigation Officer, (hereinafter referred to as 'I.O.') Bhagwat Singh recorded statements of Informant, rushed to the place of incident and prepared inquest in his own hand writing which is Ex.Ka-7 on record. He also prepared relevant documents including Photonash, letter to C.M.O., letter to R.I., Specimen of seal etc; took in possession sample of simple and blood stained earth and prepared recovery memo, Ex.Ka-14, in respect thereof; took in possession shoes
Amar Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh & Ors.
Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. Vs. State of UP
Dhari & Ors. Vs. State of U. P.
Dilip Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Ganga Bhawani Vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Others
Jayabalan Vs. U.T. of Pondicherry
Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Ravinder Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab
Sahebrao & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
State Represented by Inspector of Police Vs. Saravanan & Anr.
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.