SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(All) 1955

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Pritinker Diwaker, Raj Beer Singh, JJ.
Rajdeo Pandey - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2010 of 1986
Decided On : 24-10-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Anoop Trivedi, Adv., Abhishek Kumar Chaubey, Adv., J.K. Upadhyay, Adv.

The special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured witness and its reliability in establishing the presence of the witness at the scene of the crime.

Headnote:

Eyewitness - Criminal Law - IPC Sections 302, 307 - Summary: The court discussed the presence of eyewitnesses, the consistency of their statements with medical evidence, and the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured witness. The court found the testimony of the injured witness credible and reliable, leading to the affirmation of the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellants under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over a village pond, leading to threats and animosity between the accused and the complainant. The accused-appellants assaulted the complainant and his brother, resulting in the death of the brother and injuries to the complainant.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the testimony of the injured witness credible and reliable, leading to the affirmation of the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellants under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC.

Issues: Presence of eyewitnesses, consistency of their statements with medical evidence, and the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured witness.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured witness and found the testimony of the injured witness credible and reliable, leading to the affirmation of the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellants under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellants Rajdeo Pandey and Sheshnath Pandey were affirmed. Their bail was cancelled, and they were ordered to be taken into custody forthwith for serving the remaining sentence.

JUDGMENT :

Raj Beer Singh, J.

This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.1986 passed by learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Session Trial No. 194 of 1985, (State V Rajdeo Pandey and three others), under Sections 302, 307 of IPC, P.S. Mehnagar, District Azamgarh, whereby all the four accused-appellants, namely, Rajdeo Pandey, Lalji Singh, Om Prakash and Shesh Nath Pandey have been convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and four years rigorous imprisonment respectively.

2. Accused-Appellants Lalji Singh and Om Prakash expired during pendency of this appeal and thus, the appeal on their behalf was already abated by this Court vide orders dated 28.03.2018 and 17.07.2019. Now, this appeal is confined only in respect of accused-appellants Rajdeo Pandey and Shesh Nath Pandey.

3. As per prosecution version, there was a dispute between complainant Ramjeet and accused-appellant Rajdeo Pandey over a pond of village, as accused-appellant Rajdeo Pandey has got mutated pond land in his name, while way of complainant was through that pond. In that regard, a case was lodged against the complainant, but he was acquitted in that case. Deceased Jhagroo was a witness in a case initiated under Section 110 Cr.P.C. against accused-appellant Rajdeo Pandey. Proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. have also taken place against the parties. Due to these reasons, accused persons were nurturing animosity against the complainant and deceased. Three days prior to the incident, accused-appellants Rajdeo Pandey, Lalji, Om Prakash and Shesh Nath Pandey have threatened the complainant and his brother Jhagroo (deceased). The incident of this case took place on 10.07.1983. On that day, complainant's brother Jhagroo was ploughing his field, while complainant and his wife were collecting grass nearby. At around 9:00 AM, all the accused-appellants armed with clubs, came out from nearby bushes and hurling abuses they started assaulting complainant and his brother Jhagroo with clubs. Complainant and Jhagroo fell down, but accused-appellant Shesh Nath Pandey continued to assault complainant, while deceased-appellant Lalji Singh caught hold of his wife and accused-appellant Rajdeo Pandey and deceased-appellant Om Prakash assaulted Jhagroo and they even jumped at his chest. Hearing noise, Dhruv Narayan Singh, Shesh Bahadur Singh, Surendra and some other persons reached there and intervened. Thereafter, all the accused-appellants ran away from spot. Complainant and injured were taken to police station, but Jhagroo succumbed to injuries on the way.

4. Complainant/Pw-1 Ramjeet submitted a written report Ex. Ka-1 at the police station and on that basis, case was registered on 10.07.1983 at 11:30 hours, under Sections 302, 307, 323/34 of IPC against all the four accused-appellants vide FIR Ex. Ka-4.

5. The inquest proceedings were conducted by PW-6 S.I. Daya Ram and inquest report Ex. Ka-7 was prepared. Dead body of the deceased was sealed and sent for postmortem.

6. Post-Mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 11.07.1983 vide post-mortem report Ex. Ka.3 and following injuries have been found on the person of the deceased.

    (i) Lacerated wound 4 cm x 4 cm x bone deep on the front and middle of left leg on exposure haematoma present in area of 5 cm x 4 cm. Both bone are fractured.

(ii) Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on right side forehead close to right eyebrow.

(iii) Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on tip of nose.

(iv) Contusion 8 cm x 4 cm on middle and both side front of chest in between both nipple.

(v) Contused abrasion in an area of 12 cm x 6 cm on anterio lateral aspect of right arm elbow and forearm seen above right wrist.

(vi) Lacerated wound on left side front of 3rd, 4th and 5th toe in an area of 8 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on Exposure underneath bone fractured.

(vii) Contused swelling 8 cm x 4 cm on dorsal aspect of right sole.

(viii) Contusion 4 cm x 4 cm on front of right ankle and leg.

(ix)

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top