Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRITINKER DIWAKER, RAJ BEER SINGH, JJ.
Chhote Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3382 of 2010, 2908 of 2012
Decided On : 24-05-2019
IPC - Murder - Section 302 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in relation to the murder charge against the accused-appellant Chhote Lal. The court also referred to the provisions of the Arms Act in relation to the charge against Chhote Lal under Section 25 of the Act. The court highlighted the importance of prompt FIR lodging, the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the impact of defective investigation on the case.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Kali Charan, was shot and killed by the accused-appellant Chhote Lal and acquitted accused Munni Lal. The incident occurred when the deceased was offering food to cattle in his residential premises. The accused-appellant Chhote Lal asked the deceased about selling his property, leading to a quarrel and ultimately the shooting. The deceased's wife and son witnessed the incident and promptly lodged an FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused-appellant Chhote Lal guilty of murder under Section 302 of IPC based on the eyewitness testimony and postmortem report. The court acquitted accused Munni Lal and Ajay Kumar due to the possibility of false implication and lack of conclusive evidence against them.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of eyewitness testimony, promptness of FIR lodging, identification of the accused, and the impact of defective investigation on the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of prompt FIR lodging, the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the impact of defective investigation on the case. The court also highlighted the principle that if two views are possible on the evidence, the view favorable to the accused should be adopted.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal of accused Chhote Lal, upholding his conviction under Section 302 of IPC. The court also dismissed the appeal of Sarvesh Kumari, the wife of the deceased, upholding the acquittal of accused Munni Lal and Ajay Kumar.
JUDGMENT :
PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
1. As these appeals arise out of common judgment dated 05.05.2010 and order dated 06.05.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5 Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 544 of 2007, convicting the accused-appellant Chhote Lal under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo six months additional imprisonment and acquitting the accused appellants Munni Lal and Ajay Kumar under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C. and further acquitting the accused appellant Chhote Lal in Sessions Trial No. 545 of 2007 under Section 25 of Arms Act, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. In the present case, name of the deceased is Kali Charan, brother of accused-appellant Chhote Lal. On 24.10.2006, at about 08:00 pm, when the deceased was in his residential premises, offering food to cattle, accused-appellant Chhote Lal asked him as to why he is disposing of the property, which was replied by deceased that he is selling his own share. Upon hearing this reply, acquitted accused Ajay Kumar, who was standing just behind the deceased, caught hold the deceased. Seeing this quarrel, two sons of the deceased namely, Pradeep Kumar (PW-3) and Shyam Sunder (not examined) reached at the place of occurrence and requested the accused persons to leave Kali Charan. During the said period, other accused person namely Munni Lal (uncle of the deceased) reached there carrying licensed gun in his hand and caused several gunshot injuries to the deceased. After sustaining gunshot injury, the deceased fell down and died at the spot. Incident was witnessed by Sarvesh Kumari (PW-1), wife of the deceased, at whose written report, Ex.Ka.1, FIR Ex.Ka.2 was registered on 25.02.2006 at 12:10 am against accused Ajay Kumar, Munni Lal and Chhote Lal (appellant) under Section 302 of IPC. It is relevant to note here that the distance between the police station and place of occurrence is about 9 kilometers.
3. Inquest on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 25.10.2006 vide Ex.Ka.6 and body was sent for postmortem, which was conducted on 25.10.2006 vide Ex.Ka.4 by Dr. U.C. Gupta (PW-4).
4. As per Autopsy Surgeon, following six injuries including three gun shot injuries have been found on the body of the deceased:
(i) Fire arm wound of entry 2cm x 1cm x brain cavity deep, margins inverted on the medial angle of Rt. eye.
(ii) Fire arm wound of exit 3 cm x 2 cm x brain cavity deep, margins everted on the left side of face in front of left ear.
Margins and brain found, 50 ml fluid blood present in brain cavity left temporal bone fractured. Injury no. 1 is communicating to injury no. 2.
(iii) abrasion 7 cm x 4 cm on the front of right shoulder.
(iv) Fire arm wound on anterior aspect of left palm gutter shape size 5 cm x 3 cm x bone deep blackening and tatooing present around the wound.
(v) Fire arm wound of entry 2 cm x 1.5 cm direction below upwards towards right. Margins inverted. Blackening present, L3 and L4 vertibra found fractured, a metalic bullet recovered from L3 and L4 vertibra.
(vi) Abrasion 9 cm x 3 cm back of chest lower part in middle.
The cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and coma as a result of antemortem injuries.
5. From accused Chhote Lal, a country made pistol was seized vide Ex.Ka.14 and from the spot empty cartridges vide Ex.Ka.11 were also seized, however, there is no ballistic expert report.
6. While framing charge, the trial court has framed charge against accused-appellant Chhote Lal and two acquitted accused Munnu Lal and Ajay Kumar under Section 302/34 of IPC. Separate charge under Section 25 of Arms Act was also framed against accused Chhote Lal in Sessions Trial No. 545 of 2007.
7. So as to hold the accused appellants guilty, prosecution has examined seven witnesses whereas one court witness Netrapal was examined likewise one defence witness Bhuwnesh Kumar was also examined. Statements of accused appellants were record
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
