Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, JJ.
Shree Pal and Others - Appellants
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1244 of 1987
Decided On : 20-07-2021
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 302, 201 and 307 - Murder - Appeal against Conviction - Prosecution story in brief, one Rajpal was shot dead in Village Kapsar, District Meerut by accused-Appellants and accused persons took away his dead body towards Rajwaha. Informant was also injured by shrapnel. Incident was reported to police station concerned telephonically by informant PW-1 - Statement of PW-1 , PW-2 (W/o deceased) and other witnesses, visited spot, prepared site plan Ex.Ka-2 at pointing out of informant, found signs of dragging dead body up to Gang Naher, prepared site plan of that place collected blood stained earth and simple earth of place of incident, prepared fards thereof and searched body on bank of river but found it nowhere. Investigating Officer collected blood stained soil and some pieces of wound there from and prepared fards - whether it is cogent and credible evidence
Finding Of The Court : Result of above discussion is that there is concrete evidence to prove prosecution case - Ocular version stands corroborated by medical evidence - Accused persons had come with lathi, danda, farsa and gun and in prosecution of common object, brutally murdered Rajpal - Circumstances that accused shot fire on Rajpal, dragged him to canal where they caused serious injuries by cutting his head and threw dead body in canal, would show that occurrence could not be carried out by one person alone, therefore, involvement of all accused persons seems to be in incident. - They succeeded in executing their plan successfully - They were rightly found guilty of offences by Trial Court - There is no mitigating circumstance or evidence for taking a different view on conviction and sentence awarded by trial Court
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.
1. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed by accused-appellants, namely, Shripal, Vijaypal, Kiranpal and Rishipal against the judgement and order dated 30.04.1987 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No.420 of 1982, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut, whereby trial Court convicted the accused appellants under Sections 302/34, 201 and 307/34 IPC and sentenced them for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/- each with default clause.
2. According to prosecution story in brief, one Rajpal was shot dead on 25.08.1982 at about 11:00 AM in Village Kapsar, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut by accused-appellants Shripal, Vijaypal, Kiranpal and Rishipal and accused persons took away his dead body towards Rajwaha. Informant was also injured by shrapnel. Incident was reported to police station concerned telephonically by informant PW-1 Jagdish.
3. On the basis of information received telephonically, a chik FIR Ex.Ka-14 was registered by Head Constable Moharrir Rajpal Singh at Crime No. 256 of 1982, under Sections 302, 201 and 307 IPC. Entry was made by same Constable in G.D. of police station concerned.
4. The then S.H.O. Roshan Lal Verma PW-5 undertook investigation of the case and took relevant papers, proceeded to spot along-with S.I. V.S. Sharma and other police officials. Recorded thereof. the statement of PW-1 Jagdish, PW-2 Smt. Ummed (W/o deceased) and other witnesses, visited the spot, prepared site plan Ex.Ka-2 at the pointing out of informant, found signs of dragging the dead body up to Gang Naher, prepared site plan of that place i.e. Ex.Ka-3, collected blood stained earth and simple earth of place of incident, prepared fards thereof and searched the body on the bank of river but found it nowhere. Investigating Officer collected blood stained soil and some pieces of wound there from and prepared fards
5. On the next day, Investigating Officer received information from one Mohd. Yaseen regarding dead body that was entered into G.D.15. Investigating Officer visited there with S.I. V.S. Sharma and other officials, directed S.I. to hold inquest over the dead body which was beheaded. Sri Sharma held inquest Ex.Ka-6 and prepared relevant papers thereof. Dead body was sent for postmortem. On the very same day, Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Mohd. Yaseen.
6. Further investigation was done by PW-7 S.I. A.K. Chaudhary due to transfer of former Investigating Officer.
7. PW-3 Dr. Prempal Singh medically examined PW-1 Jagdish on 25.08.1982 and found one lacerated wound on scalp of right parital measuring 0.8 x 0.2 cm muscle deep and clotted blood was also found over the injury. Doctor prepared medico legal report Ex.Ka-1.
8. PW-8 Dr. Vijay Singh held autopsy over the dead body of Rajpal and prepared postmortem report Ex.Ka-13, noting ante mortem injuries therein.
9. PW-7 S.I. A.K. Chaudhary, after completing entire formalities of investigation, found sufficient evidence against accused persons and submitted charge sheet Ex.Ka-12 against the accused-appellants before CJM concerned who took cognizance of the case.
10. CJM, after making sufficient compliance under Section 207 Cr.P.C., case being triable by Court of Sessions, committed it to Court of Sessions for trial.
11. Session trial came to be heard by III Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut. Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 302/34, 201 and 307/34 IPC against the accused-appellants, who denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
12. In support of its case, prosecution examined nine witnesses, namely, PW-1 Jagdish, PW-2 Smt. Ummed, PW-3 Dr. Prem Raj Singh, PW-4 Dharampal, PW-5 S.H.O. Roshan Lal Verma, PW-6 Constable Shaukat Ali, PW-7 S.I. A.K. Chaudhary, PW-8 Dr. Vijay Singh and PW-9 Moharrir Rajpal Singh out of which PWs 1 Jagdish and PW-2 Smt. Ummed are witnesses of fact and rest are formal witnesses.
13. On closure of evidence by prosecution, Court recorded the statements
Conviction upheld - Reliability of witness testimony - It is settled that merely because witnesses are close relatives of victim, their testimonies cannot be discarded. Relationship with one of parti....
Point of Law : A wife, who has seen an assailant giving fatal blows with a stick to her husband, would name the assailant to all present and to the police at an earliest opportunity.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence for conviction; mere suspicion is insufficient for a guilty verdict.
Interested witnesses, such as close relatives of the deceased, can provide credible testimony and their evidence should be carefully scrutinized but not automatically discarded. In cases of direct ev....
The significance of corroborative eyewitness testimony in criminal cases, with minor discrepancies not undermining evidence credibility, unless they affect core facts established beyond reasonable do....
Prosecution has failed to prove charges levelled against accused persons under Sections 302/34, 201 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act by any reliable, cogent and independent evidence to hilt beyond reas....
The testimony of the witnesses was found to be reliable and trustworthy, and the medical evidence corroborated the ocular testimony, leading to the affirmation of the judgment and order of conviction....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of sudden quarrel and fight, where there is no evidence of pre-planned attack or common object to commit murder, individual liability....
Point of law: So far as motive is concerned, it is well settled, where direct evidence is worthy to credence, can be believed, then motive does not carry much weight - That mind set of accused person....
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
