Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANOJ MISRA, VIRENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Rajveer Singh and Others - Appellants
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 826 of 1991
Decided On : 11-09-2019
FIR - Delay in lodging FIR - Sections 141, 146, 148, 149 IPC - Inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, material contradiction between the statement of injured eye witnesses made during investigation and statement made during trial, and reasonable doubt regarding sharing of common object by appellant Viresh as a member of unlawful assembly or having knowledge of any such common object, have created serious doubts in the prosecution case as against the sole surviving appellant which entitles the surviving appellant (Viresh) the benefit of doubt. He is therefore entitled to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution case involved an incident where appellants were alleged to have caused injuries to the witnesses. The FIR was lodged after a delay of more than 13 hours without any satisfactory and plausible explanation. The medical evidence was not corroborated with ocular evidence. The conduct of injured witnesses was neither natural nor trustworthy. The judgment and order passed by the Special Judge, Moradabad in Session Trial No. 586 of 1988 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Finding of the Court:
The inordinate delay in lodging the FIR as well as delay in medical examination, material contradiction between the statement of injured eye witnesses made during investigation and statement made during trial, and reasonable doubt regarding sharing of common object by appellant Viresh as a member of unlawful assembly or having knowledge of any such common object, have created serious doubts in the prosecution case as against the sole surviving appellant which entitles the surviving appellant (Viresh) the benefit of doubt. He is therefore entitled to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.
Issues: Inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, material contradiction between the statement of injured eye witnesses made during investigation and statement made during trial, and reasonable doubt regarding sharing of common object by appellant Viresh as a member of unlawful assembly or having knowledge of any such common object.
Ratio Decidendi: The inordinate delay in lodging the FIR as well as delay in medical examination, material contradiction between the statement of injured eye witnesses made during investigation and statement made during trial, and reasonable doubt regarding sharing of common object by appellant Viresh as a member of unlawful assembly or having knowledge of any such common object, have created serious doubts in the prosecution case as against the sole surviving appellant which entitles the surviving appellant (Viresh) the benefit of doubt.
Final Decision: The judgment and order passed by the Special Judge, Moradabad in Session Trial No. 586 of 1988 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Virendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Code") against the judgment and order dated 23.4.1991 passed by Special Judge, Moradabad in Session Trial No. 586 of 1988 (State vs. Rajveer Singh and others), P.S. Naugawa Sadat, District Moradabad, U.P., whereby, appellants Rajveer Singh and Jagat Veer Singh have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life, whereas, appellants Suresh, Viresh and Teeka Ram have been convicted and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 and all the appellants have further been convicted for offence under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 2 years. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that appellants Rajveer Singh, Jagat Veer Singh, Suresh, Viresh and Teeka Ram; PW-1, Hari Raj Singh; PW-4, Dinesh Kumar and PW-5, Dushyant are residents of Village Jamuna Khas, P.S. Naugawa Sadat, District Moradabad. Appellants, namely, Rajveer Singh and Jagat Veer Singh, are real brothers. Appellants Suresh and Viresh are also real brothers. PW-2, Shoorveer Singh is brother-in-law of PW-1, Hari Raj Singh.
3. It is the prosecution case that while, on 29.1.1984, PW-1, Hari Raj Singh was irrigating his field by a diesel pump set of PW-4, Dinesh Kumar, at about 10:00 p.m., PW-2, Shoorveer Singh came there and told that appellants Rajveer, Jagat Veer, Suresh and Viresh armed with guns, whereas, appellant Teeka Ram armed with sword, were coming from the Haveli of appellant Suresh towards him (Hari Raj Singh). PW-1, Hari Raj Singh told him not to worry as appellants Viresh and Suresh were also with them. As a result, both of them sat under the bullock cart with lantern, emmitting light, hanging at its back. At about 11:00 p.m., all the appellants reached the place of occurrence, where PW-1, Hari Raj Singh, PW-2, Shoorveer Singh and PW-4, Dinesh were sitting. Seeing them, PW-1, Hari Raj Singh came out from under the bullock cart. Whereafter, appellant Jagat Veer fired at PW-2, Shoorveer Singh which hit his hands; PW-1, Hari Raj Singh caught appellant Jagat Veer Singh by his arms and bit his shoulder. Upon which, appellant Rajveer Singh exhorted appellant Teeka Ram to attack him with sword. As appellant Teeka Ram was about to attack Hari Raj Singh (PW-1), he released appellant Jagat Veer Singh and as soon as PW-1, Hari Raj released him, appellant Rajveer fired at PW-1, Hari Raj Singh which hit his left hand, whereby, he fell down. After the firing, appellants came near PW-2, Shoorveer, to verify whether PW-2, Shoorveer was alive or not. Upon information from Suresh that he was about to die, upon sensing that on alarm raised by PW-1, Hari Raj Singh and PW-2, Shoorveer Singh, persons present at a crusher nearby were coming, the appellants ran away. In the night, PW-1, Hari Raj Singh sent PW-5, Dushyant along with one Subhash and Ravindra to P.S. Naugawa Sadat to lodge First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as "F.I.R."), but the same was not lodged as Station Officer of P.S. Naugawa Shadat advised them to arrange for treatment of injured first instead of bothering to lodge an F.I.R. Next day, in the morning, PW-1, Hari Raj and PW-2, Shoorveer Singh were taken to Combined Health Centre (CHC), Amroha by tractor of PW-5, Dushyant.
4. Pw-3, Dr. A.K. Mehrotra, Medical Officer, Combined Health Centre, Amroha, examined the injuries of PW-1, Hari Raj Singh and PW-2, Shoorveer Singh on 30.1.1984. The injuries noticed were as follows:
(i) fire arm wound of entry, size 3.2 cm x 3.2 cm through and through on inner side of left upper arm,4 cm above from the left elbow joint, margins everted, bleeding present after cleaning of wound.
(ii) fire arm exit wound, size 15.0 cm x 13.0 cm through and through on the in
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
