Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAMESH SINHA, VIVEK VARMA, JJ.
Radhey Shyam and Others – Appellants
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 947 of 1982
Decided On : 04-02-2022
Indian Penal Code ,1860 - Sections 302 and 201 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 161, 313 and 437-A – Criminal Trial - Offence of Assault and Murder - Benefit of doubt – Appeal against Conviction – Reliability of Eye witness - Whether evidence of two eye-witnesses inspires confidence or not - Informant (P.W.1) and his brother were going towards their field for cutting Urd (mnZ). Deceased and his wife were going to village for taking medicine from Dr. and when they reached near field on southern side of village - All four accused persons surrounded (deceased) and tried to catch him and started scuffling, thereupon (deceased) and his wife also raised alarm. On hearing alarm, informant (P.W.1), his brother, his villagers and other villagers ran by challenging them. By that time, all accused persons dropped (deceased) on road, caught him and accused persons cut his neck with banka, whereas both accused were catching him. Thereafter, (accused) took away head of deceased along with his companions and ran towards eastern side. They tried to catch them but they were threatened and they could not apprehend them. Dead body of (deceased) was lying in supervision of Rajneesh and others.
Finding of the court: Court have also re-appreciated entire evidence on record, more particularly depositions of PW1 and PW2 and have also considered the injuries found on headless body of deceased as well as injuries found on unknown recovered head - As per statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2, after coming out from Jonhari’s field of accused persons clinging to deceased. It is quite unnatural that a group of persons armed with deadly weapon came and challenged a person, then, person instead of trying to save himself by hook and crook, standing there and waiting for the group persons to come nearer to him and kill him - It is pertinent to mention that P.W.2 in his statement has categorically stated that Jagdish had caught feet of deceased on the eastern side and Raj Kumar caught his head on western side, whereas on northern side Siyaram and on southern side Radhey were cutting his head with Banka and both of them must have used banka blow three to four times and there was no mark of blow of banka on earth - Even if it is assumed statement of P.W.2 is true and perfect, then, it is beyond imagination that when four persons tried to kill deceased, out of which, one person caught hold head of deceased and one person caught hold feet of deceased and two accused persons cut neck of deceased, no tussle took place from accused persons and deceased and deceased did not try to save himself from accused persons - Prosecution has not produced any evidence on record to effect that when two accused persons were caught holding feet and head of deceased and when two accused persons were cutting neck of deceased by banka, what was position of hands of deceased evidence of both of eye-witnesses shows that no effort was made by deceased and his wife to save deceased and also during cutting neck, deceased did not make any agitation by hand. This creates doubt on evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 – Deceased wife is said to be the wife of deceased and was 10-15 steps behind the deceased and she had recognized the assailants, whereas Rajneesh is nephew of deceased. But their conduct in not reporting to police incident, although they were at place of incident and seen whole incident, was highly unnatural and improbable - Prosecution failed to show any reason or evidence to justify conduct of Madhu and Rajneesh.
Result: Criminal appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
RAMESH SINHA, J.
(A) INTRODUCTION
1. Four accused persons, namely, Radhey Shyam, Raj Kumar, Jagdish and Siyaram, were tried by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 791 of 1981, State vs. Radhey Shyam and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 210 of 1981, under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C.”) at police station Pihani, District Hardoi.
2. Vide judgment and order dated 02.12.1982, the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi, convicted and sentenced the accused persons in the manner as stated herein-below:
(i) Under Section 302 I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment.
(ii) Under Section 201 I.P.C. to undergo three years’ R.I.”
“Accused Jagdish and Raj Kumar
(i) Under Section 302 read-with Section 34 I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment.
(ii) Under Section 201 I.P.C. to undergo three years’ R.I.” Their sentences were directed to run concurrently.”
3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 02.12.1982, the convicts/appellants have preferred the instant appeal. During pendency of the instant appeal, convict/appellant no. 1-Radhey Shyam, convict/appellant no. 3-Jagdish and convict/appellant no. 4-Siyaram died, hence their appeal stand abated vide orders dated 01.02.2021, 02.07.2015 and 02.07.2015, respectively. Now, the instant appeal survives only with regard to appellant no. 2-Raj Kumar.
(B) FACT
4. Shortly stated, the prosecution case runs as under:
It has also been stated that Sripal (deceased) had married Madhu about five months ago from this occurrence. Madhu is aged about 14-15 years, who has an illicit connection with Siyaram (accused) and due to that Siyaram (accused) and Sripal (deceased) had a lot of bickering with each other. Mother-inlaw of Sripal, namely, Smt. Sarojani was also living with Sripal (deceased). Sripal (deceased) was alone and he had none else in his family. He had a lot of land and property and to take away his wife and property, all these four accused collusively murdered Sripal (deceased).
5. The evidence of PW-1 Raj Bahadur shows that Pradhan Jaswant Singh had sent him to the police sta
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.
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....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and contradictions and doubts in the evidence can lead to the f....
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....
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....
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
