Back
2020 Supreme(All) 539
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. AMIT STHALEKAR, ALI ZAMIN, JJ.
Mahadev Prasad @ Shiv Ram Goojar and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2001
Decided On : 29-05-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : B.D. Maurya, Shashi Dhar Pandey.
Point of Law:
It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinized and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 34, 302 – Offence of Murder – Conviction of – This is an appeal challenging the judgment and order passed in S.T. by which Additional Sessions Judge, has convicted appellants under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of appellants to undergo imprisonment for life and fine to appellant to appellant and in default of payment of fine they have been directed to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and one month respectively – Held, There is clear, cogent and reliable evidence against appellant Indra Pal in perpetration of the crime – Trial court properly evaluating the evidence has recorded the finding of conviction and sentence – Court find that learned trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned judgment and order – Appeal Dismissed (Paras 35, 36)
Facts of the Case:
It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinized and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
There is clear, cogent and reliable evidence against appellant Indra Pal in perpetration of the crime – Trial court properly evaluating the evidence has recorded the finding of conviction and sentence – Court find that learned trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned judgment and order.
Result: Appeal Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
ALI ZAMIN, J.
1. Heard Sri. Shashi Dhar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused record carefully.
2. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 20.12.2000 passed in S.T. No. 131 of 1996, State vs. Mahadev and Others by which the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Firozabad has convicted the appellants under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 5,000/- to appellant Mahadev Prasad @ Shiv Ram Goojar Rs. 1000/- to appellant Indra Pal @ Guddu and in default of payment of fine they have been directed to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and one month respectively.
3. At the outset it is noted that during pendency of the trial Gulab Singh @ Golia died, his case was abated vide order dated 06.07.2000 and during pendency of the appeal, appellant no. 1 Mahadev Prasad @ Shivram Goojar also died and appeal against him has been dismissed as abated vide order dated 07.01.2019. Hence this appeal is confined to appellant no. 2 Indra Pal Singh @ Guddu only.
4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as culled out from the case of prosecution, are that the candidate of informant Dinesh Upadhyay had won the election of Gram Pradhan. Accused Mahadev Prasad @ Shivram Goojar S/o Maharaj Singh Goojar also contested the election and he was defeated. Manish, the deceased had worked for winning candidate of Pradhan. On account of which Mahadev Prasad @ Shivram Goojar, Indra Pal @ Guddu, Son of Maharaj Singh and Gulab Singh @ Golia Son of Rajbir Jatav of his village were bearing enmity with him. On account of this enmity, to avenge from him Mahadev Prasad @ Shivram Goojar kept his wife and children along with all belongings at his house to somewhere else. Mahadev and his brother Indra Pal used to visit the house. On 13.08.1995 at about 6:00 p.m. Manish Upadhyay was sitting on a cot in front of his house. Informant Dinesh Upadhyay, Chandrabhan Son of Srichandra, Raghvendra Son of Om Prakash and Virendra Dubey Son of Sri. Ram Gopal Dubey resident of Rashidpur Kanetha, P.S. Matsaina were also sitting at a some distance, when the accused Mahadev Prasad @ Shivram Goojar, Indra Pal @ Guddu and Gulab Singh @ Golia came having country-made pistol in their hand. Indra Pal @ Guddu and Gulab Singh @ Golia exhorted Mahadev to kill stating that because of him they have been defeated, upon this Mahadev Prasad @ Shivram Goojar fired a shot on the chest of Manish from a country-made pistol. On which he fell down and died. After firing the shot all the three accused fled, they were chased but pointing country-made pistol and threatening of dire consequences, accused fled away towards north side.
5. On the basis of written report Ext.Ka-1 of informant Dinesh Upadhyay, Case Crime No. 72/1995, under Sections 302/34 against accused was registered under chik F.I.R. Ext. Ka-8 on 13.08.1995 at 19:15 p.m. and investigation of the case was handed over to S.H.O. Virendra Singh. Virendra Singh, Investigating Officer reached the place of incident and prepared inquest memo Ext.Ka-3. He also prepared relevant papers i.e. letter to R.I. (Ext.Ka-4), challan lash (Ext.Ka-5) photo lash (Ext.Ka-6), letter to C.M.O. (Ext.Ka-7) and dispatched the dead-body for postmortem along with constable Jagvir Singh.
6. PW-6 Dr. S.L. Saraswat conducted postmortem of the dead-body on 14.08.1995 at 01:00 p.m. and prepared its report (Ext.Ka-10), according to which following injuries were found on the dead-body:
(i) Gun shot wound of 1.2 c.m. x 1 c.m. on the right side of the middle part of chest. Margin inverted, blackening and tattooing were present. Track is directing medial downward, on cutting underneath tissue is tattooed.
(ii) Multiple pin point sized abrasions all over in front both sides of chest were present and right side lung was lacerated.
In opinion of the doctor injuries were possible by fire arm and due to the injuries dea
