SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(All) 1303

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAMESH SINHA, VIVEK VARMA, JJ.
Barjor - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 1985
Decided On : 16-11-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Brijesh Kumar Yadav.

Point of Law: No hard and fast Rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 read with 34 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) and 313 - Offence of murder - Examination of accused – Appeal against convicted - Informant (P.W.1) son of is resident of Village Police Station Auras, District - (P.W.1), his uncles (deceased) and (P.W.4) had gone to market of Village Ajgaon who is the son (deceased), also came from after schooling - (P.W.7) started talking with his uncle (deceased) about field which was given to him on and informant (P.W.1), his uncle Ram Asrey (P.W.4) and were proceeding a little ahead - When (deceased) had reached southern passage of field is situated at village convict/appellant came from behind (deceased) and started beating him with (deceased) holds of convict/ appellant - Informant (P.W.1), his uncle Ram (P.W.4) and after raising alarm, ran convict/appellant Nawab armed with gun, convict/appellant armed with pistol and convict/ appellant armed with lathi were started running from North-East and South corner - sustaining injuries, fell down there and on hearing noise of fire informant P.W.4 and stopped there due to afraid.

Finding of the Court:

Corroborative statements of P.W.1 - P.W.4 - Discernible that though they are related to each other and to the deceased as well, their evidence cannot discarded by simply labelling them as ‘interested’ or witnesses - After thoroughly scrutinizing their evidence - Court do not find any direct or indirect interest of these witnesses to get accused/appellant by falsely implicating him so as to meet out any vested interest - Court considered view that evidences of P.W.1-Darshan and P.W.4 are quite reliable and we see no reason to disbelieve them conducted post-mortem of dead-body of deceased, found six lacerated wounds, two multiple fire arm entry wounds and one multiple abraded contusion on body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died due to coma as a result of head injury - Post-mortem report confirms injuries occurred on head of the deceased was by blunt object like lathi. The ownership of the lathi has not been disputed by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. - Prosecution has been successful in proving motive - There was a prior long-time enmity between deceased and accused/appellant - Accused/appellant has failed to prove.

Result: Criminal appeal is dismissed

JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, J.

1. Four accused persons, namely, Barjor, Satti, Nawab and Vidya were tried by V Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao in Sessions Trial No. 180 of 1994 : State Vs. Barjor and others arising out of Case Crime No. 56 of 1983, under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Auras, District Unnao. Vide judgment and order dated 28.01.1985, the V Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao convicted the accused/ appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 28.01.1985, convict/appellant, Barjor, has preferred the instant criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), whereas other three convict/appellants, Satti, Nawab and Vidya, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 1985 under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. It transpires from the record that during pendency of the aforesaid criminal appeals, co-convict/appellants, Satti, Nawab and Vidya, died, hence Criminal Appeal No.129 of 1985 was dismissed as abated by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.3.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.129 of 1985. In this background, this Court proceed to decide the instant appeal on behalf of present surviving appellant-Barjor.

4. The facts as unfolded by the prosecution, in short conspectus, are as under :-

The informant/Darshan (P.W.1) son of Lalu Yadav is the resident of Village Saidapur, Police Station Auras, District Unnao. On 03.09.1983, informant/Darshan (P.W.1), his uncles, namely, Daya Shanker (deceased) and Ram Asrey (P.W.4) had gone to the market of Village Ajgaon. In the market, Radhey Shyam, who is the son of Daya Shanker (deceased), also came from Hyderabad after schooling. Subsequently, after purchasing certain items, all of them were returning to their home. On the way, Mahaveer (P.W.7) started talking with his uncle Daya Shanker (deceased) about the field which was given to him on batai and informant-Darshan (P.W.1), his uncle Ram Asrey (P.W.4) and Radhey Shyam were proceeding a little ahead. When Daya Shanker (deceased) had reached the southern passage of the field of Babu Pasi, which is situated at village Ajigaon, convict/appellant Barjor came from behind Daya Shanker (deceased) and started beating him with lathi, whereupon Daya Shanker (deceased) holds the lathi of convict/ appellant Barjor. Thereafter, informant-Darshan (P.W.1), his uncle Ram Asrey (P.W.4) and Radhey Shyam, after raising alarm, ran. In the meantime, convict/appellant Nawab armed with gun, convict/appellant Satti armed with pistol and convict/ appellant Vidya armed with lathi were started running from North-East and South corner, respectively, from the field of maize. Thereafter, convict/appellants Satti and Nawab fired on the deceased (Daya Shanker), who, after sustaining injuries, fell down there and on hearing the noise of fire, informant Darshan, P.W.4-Ram Asrey and Radhey Shyam stopped there due to afraid. Then, all the convict/appellants started beating the deceased with lathis. Thereafter, on seeing the crowd, which had assembled there, the convict/appellants ran away from the spot. The deceased was a Village Pradhan in Village Saidapur and convict/appellants were residents of the same village. There was prior animosity between them because the convict/appellants had illegally taken possession of Gaon Samaj land.

5. The informant-Darshan got the FIR scribed by Ram Vilash (P.W.5), who after scribing it read it over to him. He, thereafter, affixed his thumb impression on it and, then, proceeded to Police Station Auras, which was situated at a distance of three miles from the place of occurrence and lodged it at 06:45 p.m. at the police station Auras.

6. The evidence of Constable Om Prakash (P.W.6) shows that on 3.9.1983 (on the date of incident), he was posted at Police Station Auras. On the basis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top