Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(All) 1806

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. AMIT STHALEKAR, ALI ZAMIN, JJ.
Guddu Pandey - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5100, 5195, 5493, 5494, 4060 of 2004, Government Appeal No. 5898, 6189 of 2004
Decided On : 21-11-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jagdish Singh Sengar, A.K. Rai, D.K. Singh, I.K.Chaturvedi, I.M. Khan, Jai Singh, K.K.Singh, Lav Srivastava, Pradeep Chauhan, R.C. Gupta, R.P. Singh, Rajesh Kumar Dubey, Rakesh Kumar Pandey, S.K. Pal, Samit Gopal
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate, Samit Gopal

The presence of compelling eyewitness evidence is pivotal in establishing criminal liability, overriding minor inconsistencies and lack of motive in murder cases.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 - Conviction for murder and attempt to murder - Appellant convicted for offences of murder and conspiracy to murder leading to life sentences and fines imposed - The case arose from a violent incident where multiple assailants attacked a family during the early morning hours using firearms, resulting in four deaths and injuries to several individuals. (Paras 1-9, 11-12, 26, 29, 87)

(B) Criminal Procedure - FIR validity - The First Information Report was questioned, but corroborated through testimony. Subsequent declarations provided insight, supporting the prosecution's case. Insufficient motive not fatal due to direct evidence. (Paras 30-34, 54-66, 100-109)

(C) Dying Declaration - The declarations made by injured witnesses recorded prior to death were deemed admissible for corroboration of testimony, despite challenges regarding their credibility. (Paras 62-64)

Facts of the case:
The incident transpired on July 28, 1998, where assailants attacked the complainant’s family armed with guns and bombs due to a prior minor dispute involving cattle. Four fatalities occurred, and various family members sustained injuries during the attack. (Paras 5-12)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the conviction of multiple accused for conspiracy to commit murder under IPC, ruling on the reliability of eyewitness accounts and consistent testimonies validating the incident. The trial court’s decision to convict was maintained. (Paras 110-114)

Issues: The case revolved around establishing the timelines of events, the identities of assailants, and evaluating the credibility of eyewitness testimonies and the reliance on FIR amid discrepancies. (Paras 87-112)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the weight of eyewitness accounts, confirming their reliability against inconsistencies, ruling that minor discrepancies do not undermine the core of the prosecution's narrative. The absence of a clear motive does not negate the prosecution’s case due to compelling direct evidence. (Paras 80-96)

Result: Appeals dismissed, and convictions affirmed.

Table of Content
1. conviction and sentencing details of appellants. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. summary of incident leading to appeals. (Para 10 , 11)
3. details of deceased and injured individuals. (Para 12 , 13)
4. details of medical examinations and injuries sustained. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. dying declarations of injured witnesses. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
6. arguments centered on motives and witness credibility. (Para 30 , 31 , 72 , 96)
7. historical enmity as potential motive for violence. (Para 89 , 90 , 91 , 92)
8. court evaluation of evidence impact on convictions. (Para 106 , 107 , 109 , 113)
9. enhancement of sentences discussed. (Para 117 , 118)

JUDGMENT :

B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J.

1. Criminal Appeal No. 5100 of 2004 has been filed by the appellant Guddu Pandey against the judgment and order dated 28.8.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC No. 4, Deoria in S.T. 261 of 1999 whereby he was convicted for offence under Section 302 /149 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.15000/- and on failure to pay fine, to suffer further one year rigorous imprisonment, under Section 307 /149 I.P.C. for rigorous imprisonment of ten years and a fine of Rs.5000/- and on failure to pay fine, to suffer further six months rigorous imprisonment and under Section 148 I.P.C. for 2 years rigorous imprisonment.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 5195 of 2004 has been filed by the appellant Ram Narain Singh against the judgment and order dated 28.8.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge//FTC No. 4, Deoria in S.T. 319 of 1999 (State vs. Yogendra Singh & others) whereby the appellant Ram Narain has been convicted for offence under Section 302 /149 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.15000/- and in default of payment of fine, further one year rigorous imprisonment, under Section 307 /149 I.P.C. for rigorous imprisonment of ten years and a fine of Rs.5000/- and on failure to pay fine, to suffer further six months rigorous imprisonment and under Section 148 I.P.C. for 2 years rigorous imprisonment.

3. Criminal Appeal No. 5493 of 2004 has been filed by the appellant Yogendra Singh against the judgment and order dated 28.8.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC No. 4, Deoria in S.T. 319 of 1999 (State vs. Yogendra Singh & others) whereby he was convicted for offence under Section 302 /149 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.15000/- and on failure to pay fine, to suffer further one year rigorous imprisonment, under Section 307 /149 I.P.C. for rigorous imprisonment of ten years and a fine of Rs.5000/- and on failure to pay fine, to suffer further six months rigorous imprisonment and under Section 148 I.P.C. for 2 years rigorous imprisonment.

4. Criminal Appeal No.5494 of 2004 has been filed by the appellant Ram Vinod Singh and others against the judgment and order dated 28.8.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge//FTC No. 4, Deoria in S.T. 317 of 1999 (State vs. Jitendra & others) whereby they were convicted for offence under Section302/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and and to pay a fine of Rs.15000/- and on failure to pay fine, to suffer further one year rigorous imprisonment, under Section 307 /149 I.P.C. for rigorous imprisonment of ten years and a fine of Rs.5000/- and on failure to pay fine, to suffer further six months rigorous imprisonment and under Section 148 I.P.C. for 2 years rigorous imprisonment.

5. Criminal Revision No. 4060 of 2004 has been filed by revisionist Vishnu Pati Tiwari against the judgment and order dated 28.8.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC No. 4, Deoria in S.T. 261 of 1999 for setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial court acquitting the respondents no. 2 to 7.

6. Criminal Revision No. 4061 of 2004 has been filed by revisionist Vishnu Pati Tiwari against the judgment and order dated 28.8.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC No. 4, Deoria in S.T. No. 261

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2019 Supreme(All) 1806

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABADB. AMIT STHALEKAR, ALI ZAMIN, JJ.Guddu Pandey - AppellantVersusState of U.P. - RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 5100, 5195, 5493, 5494, 4060 of 2004, Government Appeal No. 5898, 6189 of 2004Decided On : 21-11-2019

The presence of compelling eyewitness evidence is pivotal in establishing criminal liability, overriding minor inconsistencies and lack of motive in murder cases.

Cases Referred (29)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. AMIT STHALEKAR, ALI ZAMIN, JJ.
Guddu Pandey - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5100, 5195, 5493, 5494, 4060 of 2004, Government Appeal No. 5898, 6189 of 2004
Decided On : 21-11-2019