IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Manoj Misra, Saumitra Dayal Singh, JJ.
Rampal Singh And Others - Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4506 of 2005
Decided On : 05-03-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 307/149 and 302/149 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 162 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Gun fire – Murder – Appeal against conviction - First informant was sitting on a cot under a shed/'Chhappar' outside his house while his brother Devendra Singh along with Harvendra @ Tika, Chandra Pratap Singh and Shiv Vir Singh were sitting on a raised platform/‘Chabutra’ under a Neem tree, in front of his house, adjoining a public pathway running in the North-South direction. Deceased appellant reached there on foot from the South side of the public pathway. Deceased appellant was armed with his licensed rifle, Chandrabhan with his double barrel gun and the others with illicit, single barrel guns. They fired indiscriminately - Devendra Singh and Harvendra Singh @ Tika died on spot, as a result of firearm injuries suffered by them. Upon hearing the gun fire, besides first informant, Makrand Singh, Ram Saran, Harendra Singh, Virendra Singh and Rajarshi Vir Singh reached spot and witnessed occurrence.
Finding of the Court: No reason to disbelieve testimony of injured witness as to occurrence and/or manner in which he sustained seven firearm injuries. In absence of effective cross examination, his presence at time and place of occurrence being the 'Chabutra' cannot be doubted. Narration of the event and the manner in which he sustained injuries also cannot be doubted as nothing came out during that cross examination as may point towards any patent or other fatal inconsistency - Non-recovery of assault weapon is also not found decisive to the charge, as the ocular evidence led by the prosecution was reliable as to the manner of occurrence. Similarly, the absence of recovery of blood stained clothes etc. of the victim/injured witnesses, though not desirable in a trial such as this, at the same time, by very nature it would remain an inadequacy or defect in the police investigation that may not discredit the prosecution evidence, as the ocular evidence is otherwise credit worthy.
Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri Ambrish Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ankit Srivastav, learned AGA for the State-respondent.
2(i). The appellants Rampal Singh, Udaibhan and Chandrabhan filed the present appeal against the common judgment and order dated 05.10.2005 passed by Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Mainpuri, in Sessions Trial No. 411 of 2012 (State Vs. Rampal Singh & Udaibhan) and Sessions Trial No. 128 of 2004 (State Vs. Chandrabhan). By that judgment and order, the appellants – Rampal Singh, Udaibhan and Chandrabhan were convicted for offences under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 and 302/149 IPC. Upon conviction, for the offence under Section 147 IPC each of the appellants was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. Upon conviction for the offence under Section 148 IPC, each of the appellants was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment. Upon conviction for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC, each of the appellants was sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment together with fine Rs. 3,000/-. In the event of non-payment of fine, they were to undergo further imprisonment of one year. Upon conviction for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, each of the appellants was sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 5,000/-. In the event of non-payment of that fine, the appellants were to undergo further imprisonment of one year and six months.
2(ii). Upon the present appeal being filed, appellant no.1-Rampal Singh (hereinafter also referred to as the 'deceased appellant') was enlarged on bail by order dated 24.10.2005 whereas the bail application of the other two appellants was rejected. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant no.1-Rampal Singh died and the appeal filed by him was declared to have abated, vide order dated 13.12.2019. Appeal filed on behalf of appellant no.3-Chandrabhan (hereinafter also referred to as the 'appellant granted remission') also did not survive as he was granted remission by the State Government. It was dismissed as not pressed, vide order dated 07.10.2020. Thus, the present appeal survives and has been heard on behalf of appellant no.2-Udaibhan.
3(i). The prosecution case is that a First Information Report (Exhibit Ka-4) (hereinafter referred to as the FIR), in Case Crime No.63 of 2001, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC, was lodged on 11.07.2001 at 11:20 a.m., at Police Station-Kurra, Sub-District-Karhal, District-Mainpuri, by Sureshpal Singh (PW-1), son of Vishwanath Singh, upon a written application submitted in his handwriting. The FIR disclosed : on 10.07.2001 at 10:30 a.m., the first informant was sitting on a cot under a shed/'Chhappar' outside his house while his brother Devendra Singh along with Harvendra @ Tika, Chandra Pratap Singh and Shiv Vir Singh were sitting on a raised platform/‘Chabutra’ under a Neem tree, in front of his house, adjoining a public pathway running in the North-South direction. At about 10:30 a.m., the deceased appellant (appellant no.1 herein), Udaibhan and Chandrabhan (both sons of Mewaram), Mewaram (father of Udaibhan Singh and Chandrabhan) and Shailendra Singh @ Kintoo reached there on foot from the South side of the public pathway. Rampal Singh (deceased appellant) was armed with his licensed rifle, Chandrabhan with his double barrel gun and the others with illicit, single barrel guns. They fired indiscriminately at Devendra Singh, Harvendra Singh @ Tika, Chandra Pratap Singh and Shiv Vir Singh. Devendra Singh and Harvendra Singh @ Tika died on the spot, as a result of the firearm injuries suffered by them. Upon hearing the gun fire, besides the first informant, Makrand Singh, Ram Saran, Harendra Singh, Virendra Singh and Rajarshi Vir Singh reached the spot and witnessed the occurrence. Thereafter, the assailants fled – taking the same path, and in the same direction they had come from i.e. South. He also disc
Gangabhavani Vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors.
Kamaljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Krishna Gope Vs. State of Bihar
Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh & Ors.
Prithu @ Prithi Chand & Anr. Vs. State of H.P.
Mehraj Singh Vs. State of U.P.; (1994) 5 SCC 188
Jalpat Rai Vs The State of Haryana 2011 (14) SCC 208
Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 11 SCC 444
Hari Obula Reddy v. State of A.P.
Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of Delhi
Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar (2002) 9 SCC 147 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1093
State of Rajasthan Vs. Kishore
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.