Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
GOVIND MATHUR, CJ., SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Amar Singh — Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 1983
Decided on : 26-08-2019
Penal Code,1860 – Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 – Section 313 – Offence of Murder -Order of Acquittal –
Facts of the case: Appellant-accused has called in question the judgment and order whereby the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur has convicted the appellant-accused in S.T. for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. – Rest of three co-accused were however, acquitted. –
Finding of the court: Trial court has examined the grievance raised by the accused-appellant regarding the tainted investigation and and not found any circumstance which could cast reasonable doubt on the case of prosecution. – Ocular and medical evidence are credible towards the role assigned to the accused-appellant and the learned counsel for the appellant-accused has failed to show that how the appellant-accused was prejudiced due to any lapse on the part of Investigating Officer. – It is trite to know that on the basis of minor discrepancies in the testimony not touching the case of core of the case, would not result in rejection of the evidence as a whole. – Ground is also liable to be rejected, accordingly, rejected. –
Result: Appeal Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The appellant-accused has called in question the judgment and order dated 19.3.1983 whereby the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur has convicted the appellant-accused in S.T. No.58 of 1982 (State vs. Amar Singh and others) for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The rest of three co-accused were however, acquitted.
3. The background aspect so far as relevant for the present appeal could be noticed in brief as follows :-
(i) PW-1-Sunil Dutt, minor son of deceased submitted a written complaint to the effect that on 12.10.1981, he along with his sister namely Sunita Verma (PW-2), minor daughter of the deceased were going on two separate bicycles to their school at 'about 9 a.m. along with their father (since deceased) who was teacher by profession. When they reached near the patri of Nehar, appellant-accused along with other three co-accused, who were hiding in the bushes, suddenly came out and attacked his father. The appellant-accused and co-accused Kripal Singh were armed with pistol and other two co-accused namely Mardan Singh and Sultan Singh were armed with lathi. The father of appellant (since deceased) got down from the bicycle. PW-1 and PW-2 ran towards one side and hid themselves. Both PW-1 and PW-2 witnessed the occurrence wherein, appellant-accused fired the deceased with fire arm on the right side of his chest. Co-accused Kripal Singh also fired from country made pistol on the left cheek of the deceased. Due to assault, father of PW-1 fell down and other co-accused Mardan Singh and Sultan Singh, who were armed with lathi assaulted the deceased. Seeing the occurrence, PW-1 and PW-2 started crying. At that time, their uncle-Lala Ram s/o Shiv Pal, Nathu Ram s/o Shiv Ram and Santosh Kumar (PW-3) s/o Govind Prasad of the village came to the spot. It was further mentioned in the written complaint that earlier there was some dispute between the deceased and appellant-accused regarding the cutting of drain and an FIR was lodged against the appellant-accused by the deceased and due to this enmity, accused persons killed the deceased.
(ii) The FIR was lodged at about 3:15 p.m. on 12.10.1981 i.e. on the day of occurrence. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was ten miles (about 16 km).
(iii) The prosecution in order to bring the guilt of accused persons home, examined the following witnesses :-
Sunil Dutt (PW-1), Sunita Verma (PW-2), Santosh Kumar (PW-3), Jagmohan Lal (PW-4), Ram Sewak Singh (PW-5), Babu Ram (PW-6), Mahendra Singh (PW-7), Suraj Prasad Agnohotri (PW-8), Mahadeo Singh (PW-9), Dr. P.C. Chaurasia (PW-10).
(iv) PW-1 is the minor son of deceased and was around 14 years old, when the incident took place, his evidence was recorded on 27.7.1982. In his testimony, he repeated the version as mentioned in the written complaint. PW-1 was subjected to detail cross-examination.
(v) PW-2, daughter of the deceased was around 15 years of age, also supported the testimony of PW-1. She was also cross-examined in detail. Both PW-1 and PW-2 were eye witnesses to the occurrence.
(vi) PW-3-Santosh Kumar has stated in his testimony that on 12.1.1981 around 9 a.m., he heard the sound of firing and when he came near the place of occurrence, which was at a distance of 100 steps, he saw the accused Amar Singh and co-accused Kripal Singh having armed with country made pistol. The other co-accused namely Mardan Singh and Sultan Singh were assaulting the deceased with lathis at that time. On chasing, the accused ran away. He was also cross-examined in detail.
(vii) PW-5-Ram Sewak Singh-Sub-Inspector, who was Investigating Officer of the case, stated in his testimony that he recorded the written complaint of PW.1 on 12.10.1981 and thereafter, he proceeded to the place of occurrence, however due to night, no further investigation could take place. On the next day i.e
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
