IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Govind Mathur, CJ., Vivek Varma, J.
Bachchu and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3102 of 1983
Decided On : 28-04-2020
MURDER - Criminal Law - Section 302 IPC, Section 326/34 IPC - The court discussed the prosecution's case against the accused-appellants Bachchu, Rameshwar, Radhey, and Chait for the murder of Ram Singh. The judgment analyzed the testimonies of the witnesses, the investigation process, and the circumstances of the case. The court found material contradictions, improvements, and doubts in the testimonies of the witnesses, leading to the conclusion that the ocular evidence was not trustworthy and reliable. The judgment highlighted the deficiencies in the investigation, including the delay in recording statements of the eye witnesses and the absence of independent witnesses, which raised reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution's case. The court concluded that the prosecution evidence did not establish the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution accused Bachchu of murdering Ram Singh, while Rameshwar, Radhey, and Chait were charged with an offense under Section 326/34 IPC. The witnesses' testimonies and the investigation process were analyzed by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found material contradictions, improvements, and doubts in the testimonies of the witnesses, leading to the conclusion that the ocular evidence was not trustworthy and reliable. The deficiencies in the investigation, including the delay in recording statements of the eye witnesses and the absence of independent witnesses, raised reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution's case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had proven its case against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of trustworthy and reliable evidence, material contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses, deficiencies in the investigation, and the absence of independent witnesses, which raised reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court were set aside. The accused-appellants Bachchu and Radhey were ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
ORDER :
Vivek Varma, J.
1. By the judgment impugned dated 08.12.1983, learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur has convicted the accused-appellant Bachchu for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and awarded sentence to undergo imprisonment for life. Under the same judgment, co-accused Rameshwar, Radhey and Chait have been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 326/34 IPC, and sentenced to undergo four years Rigorous Imprisonment.
2. The appellant no. 2 (Rameshwar) and appellant no. 4 (Chait) died during pendency of this appeal and their appeal abated, vide order dated 24.08.2016. At present, the appeal of appellant no. 1 (Bachchu) and appellant no. 3 (Radhey) survives for hearing.
3. The prosecution case, as set-out in the first information report is, Roop Ram (P.W.-1) submitted a written report (Ext. Ka-1) written by Ram Asre, at Police Station Nigohoi District Shahjahanpur on 29.03.1983 at 15.10 PM. It stated, wheat crop was standing on the agricultural field measuring 1.90 acre, situated towards the west of the village. Ganga Deen, Mewa, Durga, Chotey, Thamman, Kedar and informant's father Lakhan were the co-sharers of the said agricultural holding whose names were recorded in the revenue records. Half the crop was disclosed to have been sown by Chait and the other half by Bachhu. Earlier, on many occasions, the informant's brother Ram Singh and Bhoop Ram had asked Bachhu and Chait not to till their land but, the latter did not agree and had sown the wheat crop. Far from acting lawfully and instead of withdrawing from the agricultural holding of the informant's family, they developed enmity against the informant and his brothers. On account of this enmity, at about 12:00 noon on 29.03.1983 assaulted the informant's brother Ram Singh. At that time Ram Singh (since deceased) was returning to his house after offering 'Aakhat' at Holi festival while the informant and his another brother Bhoop Ram, their uncle Agne and Om Prakash a villager of the same village were offering 'Aakhat at Holi. Bachhu, Rameshwar, Radhey, Chait surrounded Ram Singh near the house of Puttu Lal. Bachhu, who was carrying single barrel gun, upon being exhorted by Chait, fired at Ram Singh. The shot hit his brother in the abdomen, who fell down in the verandah of Puttu Lal and died on the spot. The FIR than narrates, Bachhu had fired at the deceased while Rameshwar, Radhey and Chait surrounded the deceased. Upon alarm being raised by them, the accused persons ran towards their respective houses.
4. On the basis of such information given to the police, a First Information Report was lodged at Police Station Nigohi, District Shahjahanpur at 15:10 P.M. It was registered as Case Crime No. 52 of 1983 under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused appellants. Sub-Inspector M.L. Sharma (PW-4) was entrusted the investigation. He visited the place of incident and prepared an inquest; recorded the statements of inquest witnesses and; prepared necessary papers like photo lash (Ext. Ka 5), challan lash (Ext. Ka 6), letter for post mortem (Ex. Ka 7) and sample seal (Ext. Ka 8). The dead body was sealed and sent to the mortuary for post mortem through Constable Ramesh Singh (PW-3) and Prem Prakash. A site plan (Ext. Ka-11) was also prepared. The sample of plain and blood stained earth was taken into possession through memo (Ext. Ka 10). The I.O. received an empty cartridge and prepared recovery memo (Ext. Ka 9).
5. An autopsy was conducted on the dead body of deceased by Dr. A.P. Mishra (PW-3) on 30.03.1983 at 3:00 P.M. and post mortem report (Ext. Ka 15) was prepared.
6. The accused-appellants were taken into custody from their respective houses at 11:00 P.M. in the night on 29.03.1983. The weapon of assault-single barrel gun of Bachhu along with his gun licence and ammunition belt with 10 live cartridges were taken into custody by the Investigating Officer from Bachhu's house. The statements of eye witnesses Bhoop Ram, Om Prakash and Mahipal wer
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.