IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RITU RAJ AWASTHI, DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JJ.
Lucknow Omaxe City Residents and Allottees Association and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Misc. Bench No. 9591 of 2018
Decided On : 02-07-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313, 366 (1) and 354 (3) – Offence of Murder - Extra- judicial confession - Circumstantial evidence – Appeal against conviction - Whether prosecution has been able to establish a chain of circumstances so as to not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion that allegations brought against accused persons are sufficiently proved and established - Whether infirmities in investigation and discrepancies pointed out in prosecution evidence make out a ground for rejecting prosecution version was explained at length in case of State of Karnataka Vs. Suvarnnamma : 2015 (88) ACC 317 - (P.W.1) was present at his home his brother-in-law (accused/appellant herein) came at his house and told him that in intervening night he accused/appellant along with his wife and daughters were sleeping in his house. In night, at 1:00 a.m., someone knocked his door. Thereupon, accused/appellant asked that who was knocking his door but there was no response. Thereafter, he (accused/appellant) went at roof of his house and saw that among them one person was a resident of Village who fired a shot upon him (accused/appellant), however, he escaped unhurt. Thereafter, accused/appellant jumped at ground floor. At same time, one of miscreant gave a blow at his head with butt of gun. Thereupon, he (accused/appellant) ran away from there and by concealing himself in field, saw that miscreants have jumped in to his house thereafter smoke was coming out from his house.
Finding of the Court: It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the Court, upon due appreciation of entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence - While dealing with circumstantial evidence, the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea - Prosecution has proved beyond doubt that appellant has motive to commit murder of his wife and his four minor children and, therefore contention of learned Counsel for the appellant on this score is not sustainable and same is rejected also - Though there is some lapses on part of Investigating Agency in investigation but the prosecution has established case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore plea of appellant in this regard is not sustainable and is, accordingly, rejected - Prosecution has been able to established chain of circumstances, which are in themselves complete and the same are conclusive in nature and excludes all possible hypothesis except fact that it was appellant alone who is guilty of crime - Trial Court was fully justified in convicting the accused appellant under Section 302 of IPC.
Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by Lucknow Omaxe City Residents and Allottees Association, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act, 1860’) and its two office bearers, who are also the residents of Housing Complex developed by M/s Omaxe Limited, respondent no. 6 named as ‘Omaxe City’ and its subsidiary companies (collectively called as ‘Developer’). The housing complex has been developed by the M/s Omaxe in an area of around 140 acres at Village Aurangabad Khalsa, Raebareli Road, Lucknow, Near Amar Shaheed Path.
2. The State Government took a policy decision vide Government Order dated 25th January, 1996 in order to mitigate difficulties faced in integrated development of an area/project due to location of parcels of land belonging to Gram Samaj etc. around the area proposed to be developed. It was felt that if such parcels of land were consolidated, then the utility of such land and its value would get substantially increased and, there would not be any impediment to sanction the layout and development plan for such an area. In view of the aforesaid, it was directed that if in any layout plan of any area, for development, the parcels of land of Gram Samaj are situated within the layout plan, then the sanctioning agency of the layout plan would be empowered to consolidate such parcels of land of Gram Samaj and, secure an undertaking from Developer to leave the consolidated land which should have approach road. It was also provided that if providing approach road was not feasible at all, then the value of such parcels of land belonging to Gram Samaj be charged from the Developer. The outlay plan would only be passed, if the Developer would agree to such a condition.
3. On applications filed under Section 161 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 by the Developer for exchange of Gram Samaj land, which was in different parcels, total area 4.5422 hectares, these lands were ordered to be exchanged with the same amount of land which was offered by the Developer vide order dated 14the December, 2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow in Case No. 03/12/06-07 and two other cases. It was specifically recorded in the said orders that the land of Gram Samaj was not the land of public utility and, for the land offered in exchange of the land of Gram Samaj, an approach road was proposed, which would be available for the exchanged land.
4. The land of Gram Samaj subsequently vested in Lucknow Nagar Nigam, Lucknow after issuance of the relevant notification by the State Government under Section 3 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act, 1959’) as is provided under Section 126 of the Act, 1959. Initially, in the layout plan submitted by the Developer, they proposed 12 meters wide approach road. The Nagar Nigam granted ‘no objection certificate’ for the housing project proposed to be developed by the Developer on 24th November, 2002. In the said ‘no objection certificate’ it was specifically provided that instead of 12 meters wide approach road, 18 meters wide approach road would be constructed. It was further provided that a case regarding exchange of Gram Samaj land to the extent of 24566.62 square meter was pending before the Municipal Corporation, Lucknow and, therefore, till the final decision was taken on the aforesaid subject, the Developer would be allowed to carry out the development work in the proposed layout plan. The affidavits dated 13th April, 2006 on behalf of the Developer were submitted, stating therein that the Developer would provide approach road to the land given in exchange to the Lucknow Nagar Nigam in lieu of the land of Gram Samaj. In pursuance of the aforesaid ‘no objection certificate’ submitted by the Developer, a revised layout plan was submitted by the Developer before the Lucknow Development Authority, providing therein 18 meters approach road to the land
Offence of Murder – Death Sentence Confirmed - Imposition of death sentence in ‘rarest of rare’ cases - Instant case falls in category of 'rarest of rare case', warranting capital punishment. Hence d....
The construction of a permanent building on land reserved as open space without seeking prior permission from the competent authority is illegal.
Public landowner has preferential redevelopment rights on reserved slum land; conditional NOC cancellation valid for developer's failure to provide compliant plans for public amenities, subordinating....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 20(2) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, if the land is not acquired within the specified period, the....
Point of law: writ petition was not barred by either on the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata. In the peculiar facts of the case since the issues referred to supra namely issue ....
Prior development permissions granted under repealed rules remain valid despite subsequent regulatory changes, and cannot be revoked retroactively by new laws.
The court mandated the Jaipur Development Authority to construct a planned 100 ft. road as per the Master Plan and remove all encroachments obstructing public infrastructure, emphasizing judicial res....
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.