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

2020 Supreme(All) 558

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, RAVI NATH TILHARI, JJ.
Mohan @ Mohan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 871 of 1996
Decided On : 27-05-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A.R.B. Kher.

Point of Law:
Duty of the Court is to find out truth from the statement of witnesses as the whole body of the testimony cannot be rejected because witnesses were evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect. Minor discrepancies occurring in the statements of witness due to normal error of observation, normal error of memory, due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence cannot be given much importance.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 307, 302 – Offence of Murder – Conviction of – Criminal appeal is directed against judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Trial under Sections 307 and 302 IPC, P.S. whereby appellant has been convicted for the offences under section 302 and sentenced for life imprisonment and under section 307 I.P.C. sentenced for seven years rigorous imprisonment – Held, It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and in case of any doubt, (reasonable one), benefit must go in favour of the accused – Court find that the prosecution has failed to prove its story by producing truthful witnesses – Benefit of doubt which arose in the minds of the Court regarding truthfulness of the case of the prosecution has to go in favour of the accused – And as such, giving benefit of doubt to the appellant, Court set aside the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC – Appeal Allowed (Paras 37, 38, 40)

Facts of the Case:

First Information Report, dated 10.6.1991 registered at about 5.30 a.m. at P.S. Kotwali, District-Jhansi that on 10.6.1991 at about 4.30 a.m. when deceased Jamna (wife of the first informant) and his aunt Rajabeti, wife of Nathhu were going to get drinking water from the Public (Sarkari) Tap and the first informant was accompanying them to attend the call of nature, Mohan (appellant) son of Kallu Kachhi and two other young boys met them at a place inside the outer gate of the village. Seeing them standing, on their way, his aunt Rajabeti stopped them, Mohan then said and attacked Jamna by knife in her chest while his two accomplices caught hold of Jamuna (deceased).

Finding of the Court:

It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and in case of any doubt, (reasonable one), benefit must go in favour of the accused – Court find that the prosecution has failed to prove its story by producing truthful witnesses – Benefit of doubt which arose in the minds of the Court regarding truthfulness of the case of the prosecution has to go in favour of the accused – And as such, giving benefit of doubt to the appellant, Court set aside the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.

Result: Appeal Allowed

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Mahima Maurya, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and Sri. L.D. Rajbhar, Prem Shankar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.

2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.5.1996 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Sessions Trial No. 144 of 1991, State vs. Mohan @ Mohan Singh, under Sections 307 and 302 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District-Jhansi, whereby appellant Mohan @ Mohan Singh has been convicted for the offences under section 302 and sentenced for life imprisonment and under section 307 I.P.C. sentenced for seven years rigorous imprisonment. Both the punishments are to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution story as unfolded with the First Information Report, dated 10.6.1991 registered at about 5.30 a.m. at P.S. Kotwali, District-Jhansi that on 10.6.1991 at about 4.30 a.m. when deceased Jamna (wife of the first informant) and his aunt Rajabeti, wife of Nathhu were going to get drinking water from the Public (Sarkari) Tap and the first informant was accompanying them to attend the call of nature, Mohan (appellant) son of Kallu Kachhi and two other young boys met them at a place inside the outer gate of the village. Seeing them standing, on their way, his aunt Rajabeti stopped them, Mohan then said ^^rw vkxs c<** and attacked Jamna by knife in her chest while his two accomplices caught hold of Jamuna (deceased). The first informant Parikshit (husband of deceased) challenged them in the torch light and his aunt Rajabeti hit them by the metal pot (Kasedi) which she was carrying to fill water. Mohan also hit back Rajabeti by knife causing injury in her left hand. The deceased fell down and died. Amidst the chaos, on the challenge raised by the first informant, three assailants ran away towards the grove. Some people took deceased Jamna and injured Rajabeti to the District Hospital. The motive to commit the crime as stated in the report is that around five days prior to the occurrence, an alteration took place between wife of first informant Parikshit and his neighbour Mohan S/o Kallu Kushwaha also his mother Rama. In the said altercation, Mohan had threatened the deceased with dire consequences. Since it was a normal dispute and hence no report was lodged by the first informant. It was stated that the first informant and his aunt Rajabeti had seen the assailants Mohan and his two accomplices clearly in the torch light and they knew accused Mohan by name whereas his two other accomplices were not known to them. They, however, could recognize them, if the assailants were brought before them. The report is scribed by one Kalicharan S/o Narayan Das.

4. The record indicates that the police swung into action and recoveries were made, site plan prepared and accused Mohan was arrested. The recovery memo of the torch which the first informant was carrying, had been prepared, marked as Exhibit Ka-2. Three Kaseria (metal pots for filling water) carried by deceased and injured Rajabeti recovered from the spot of the crime on 10.6.1991, were sealed in a recovery memo, which was proved and exhibited as Exhibit Ka-6. Blood-stained clothes of injured Rajabeti recovered on 12.6.1991 were kept in Exhibit Ka-7. Recovery memo of blood stained earth and plain earth collected from the spot of crime dated 10.6.1991 has been proved as Exhibit Ka-8.

5. The injury report of Rajabeti wife of Nathhoo aged about 70 years is dated 10.6.1991 which records that she was brought to the district hospital Jhansi on 10.6.1991 at about 5 a.m. by one Laxmi Narayan S/o Ram Charan resident of the same village. The injuries found on the person of Rajabeti are as under:-

(1) A punctured wound on the medial surface of Right upper arm. Size 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 2 c.m. and is 13 c.m. above elbow joint. Rt. side wound is severly bleeding, margins are sharply cut regular.

(2) An Incised wound 2.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x muscle deep on the ventral surface of Right fore arm. 9 c.m. above wrist joint sever

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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