Back
2018 Supreme(All) 2466
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Sudhir Agarwal, Om Prakash-VII, JJ.
Sadhu Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Jail Appeal No. 3034 of 2011
Decided On : 07-09-2018
For the Appellant : From Jail, S.V. Singh, Sudhir Shukla
The importance of ocular testimony, last seen theory, and motive in establishing a case, as well as the need for proportionate punishment to reflect the gravity of the offense.
Headnote:
Jail Appeal - Murder - Section 302 I.P.C. - [Medical evidence, last seen theory, and motive] - [The judgment discusses the medical evidence, last seen theory, and motive in the case. It highlights the importance of ocular testimony and the relevance of the circumstances of last seen together. The court also emphasizes the need for proportionate punishment to reflect the gravity of the offense.]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Sadhu Singh, appealed against his conviction and sentence for the offense under Section 302 I.P.C. The prosecution's case was based on the written report, medical evidence, and eyewitness testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. The incident involved the accused taking the deceased to search for his missing wife, resulting in the deceased's murder with an axe. The appellant denied the charges and claimed the prosecution's case was false due to enmity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It emphasized the importance of ocular testimony, last seen theory, and motive in establishing the case. The court also highlighted the relevance of medical evidence and the need for proportionate punishment to reflect the gravity of the offense.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of eyewitness testimony, the relevance of medical evidence, the last seen theory, and the motive behind the offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of ocular testimony, last seen theory, and motive in establishing the case. It also highlighted the relevance of medical evidence and the need for proportionate punishment to reflect the gravity of the offense.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused-appellant for the offense under Section 302 I.P.C. The appeal was dismissed, and the accused-appellant was directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.
JUDGMENT :
Om Prakash-VII, J.
1. Present jail appeal has been preferred by accused-appellant Sadhu Singh against judgment and order dated 06.04.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Etah in Sessions Trial No. 665 of 2003 arising out of Case Crime No. 89 of 2003 (State of U.P. Vs. Sadhu Singh) under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Jaithara, District Etah convicting and sentencing accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. with imprisonment for life and also fine of Rs. 3,000/-. In the event of default in payment of fine, accused-appellant was also directed to undergo one year's additional imprisonment.
2. Prosecution story in nutshell, as unfolded in written report Ext. Ka-1, is as follows:
3. Informant PW-1 Kanhaiya Lal moved written report Ext. Ka-1 scribed by Viresh Kumar at police station concerned on 28.06.2003 mentioning therein that Ram Prasad (deceased) and accused-appellant Sadhu Singh both were close friends. Accused-appellant Sadhu Singh had purchased an woman two years back. It was also mentioned that on 27.06.2003 in the evening accused-appellant Sadhu Singh came to house of informant and told the deceased that his wife was not present in his house and asked about whereabouts of his wife. On this, informant's brother i.e. deceased told him that he was not aware about her whereabouts. Accused-appellant told the deceased to accompany him for searching her. Since accused-appellant Sadhu Singh was armed with 'axe', informant and his brother Hari Singh also followed them suspecting accused appellant. At about 11:30 in the night when accused-appellant and deceased both reached the plot in front of house of Ram Autar, accused-appellant caused blows with 'axe' upon deceased, resultant he fell down on earth and cried. Informant and his companion flashing torches reached immediately there and saw accused-appellant causing blows on the mouth of deceased. After seeing informant and his brother, accused appellant ran away towards field. Leaving dead body at the place of occurrence, informant came at police station concerned with prayer to register the case. On the basis of written report (Ext. Ka-1), chik F.I.R. Ext. Ka-12 was registered on 28.06.2003 at 01:15 a.m. at Crime No. 89 of 2003, under Section 302 I.P.C.. G.D. entry Ext. Ka-13 was also made on same day. After registration of F.I.R., police started investigation and reached at the place of occurrence and took bloodstained and plain earth from the place of occurrence and keeping same in sealed boxes prepared sample seal and also fard Ext. Ka-3 in this regard. Concerned police also took torches said to have been used in the matter by witnesses and handing over the same on 28.06.2003 in presence of witnesses, prepared recovery memo Ext. Ka-4. Investigating Officer also prepared inquest report Ext. Ka-5 and other police papers i.e. photo lash, letter to C.M.O., Form no. 13, Form no. 33, ( Ext. ka-6 to ka-9). Dead body of deceased was kept in sealed cloth and preparing sample seal it was handed over to Constable Satyabhan Singh and Homeguard Mahesh Chandra to carry the same to mortuary for post mortem along with relevant papers. Visiting the place of occurrence, Investigating Officer also prepared site plan Ext. Ka-2 and interrogated the witnesses.
4. Autopsy on the dead body of deceased was conducted on 28.06.2003 at 12:45 p.m. at district mortuary concerned.
5. On general examination, probable time of death of deceased was about half day. No defect was found on skull, scalp, vertebra and spinal card. Urinary bladder was empty and no defect was found in generation organ.
6. On examination of dead body of deceased, following injuries were found.
“(I) Lacerated wound 1 cm X 0.5 cm X bone deep, right side chin.
(II) Lacerated wound 1½ cm X 0.5 cm X bone deep left side chin.
(III) Two lacerated wound 1 cm X 1/3 cm X muscle deep and 1½ cm X 1/2 cm X muscle deep on lower lip.
(IV) Lacerated wound 2 cm X 0.5 cm X muscle deep right side face.
(V) Lacerated
