IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Ramesh Sinha, Vikas Budhwar, JJ.
Prem Nath Yadava & Another – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. -1114 of 2015
Decided On : 06-01-2022
The appellants were convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. They appealed, arguing that the FIR was ante-timed, there was no motive for the crime, the injuries did not match the alleged crime, and the investigation was defective. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the FIR was not ante-timed, there was a motive for the crime, the injuries were consistent with the alleged crime, and the investigation was not so defective as to warrant acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. They appealed, arguing that the FIR was ante-timed, there was no motive for the crime, the injuries did not match the alleged crime, and the investigation was defective.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the FIR was not ante-timed, there was a motive for the crime, the injuries were consistent with the alleged crime, and the investigation was not so defective as to warrant acquittal.
Issues: 1. Whether the FIR was ante-timed? 2. Whether there was a motive for the crime? 3. Whether the injuries matched the alleged crime? 4. Whether the investigation was defective?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The FIR was not ante-timed because the chain of events leading up to the filing of the FIR was consistent and there was no evidence to suggest that the FIR was prepared before the incident occurred. 2. There was a motive for the crime because the appellants had a long-standing rivalry with the victim and his family. 3. The injuries were consistent with the alleged crime because the victim was shot in the stomach and left hand, which were consistent with the type of injuries that would be caused by a gunshot. 4. The investigation was not so defective as to warrant acquittal because, although there were some defects in the investigation, the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the appellants' convictions and sentences were upheld.
JUDGMENT :
Vikas Budhwar, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.09.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge Gangster Court No. 5 Sultanpur, in Gangster Case No. 379 of 2012 (State Vs. Prem Nath and Another) arising out of case crime no. 157/2002, u/s 302/34, 504, 506 IPC, and Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur whereby the appellants have been convicted u/ s 302 of IPC for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default of fine one year additional imprisonment, u/s 506 IPC for 2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-each and in default of fine one month additional imprisonment.
2. The brief facts of the case is worded in the present appeal are that the FIR was registered on 15.02.2002 at 08:10 a.m. on the basis of the information provided by the complainant Sri Haivat Ram Yadav S/o Ramaudaan alleging that on 15.02.2002 at 7 O’ clock in the morning Sri Haivat Ram along with his brother Latheru Ram had gone to the field to answer the nature’s call and when they reached the garden/field then besides the tree the appellants who are two in number being Prem Nath Yadav S/o Mahaveer Yadav and Sanjay Yadav S/o Ram Niwas were hiding who are resident of the same village where the complainant is residing. On account of old rivalry, they suddenly came out from the place where they were hiding behind the tree and hurled abuses and threatened to kill the complainant and his brother Latheru Ram S/o Ramaudaan Yadav and thereafter, they took out their country made pistol and with the intention of killing the complainant and his brother fired on account whereof the complainant lie down on the surface but the brother of the complainant being Latheru Ram sustained bullet injuries on his stomach as well as left hand and thereafter he became totally unconscious and fell down. Witnessing the said incident, the complainant started screaming for help and on that point of time Sher Bahadur S/o Bhagirathi and one Sri Mahendra Pratap S/o Ram Bahore who were coming on motorcycle came there and by that time the villagers also came at the place of occurrence and thereafter, both the accused had ran away from there while waving country made pistol in air hurling abuses and threatening to kill all of them.
3. Consequent to the same, FIR was lodged being case crime no. 157/2002, u/s 504, 506, 307 IPC against the appellants in P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur.
4. As per the records, it reveals that the time of the incident was somewhere at 7 O’ clock in the morning on 15.02.2002 and thereafter, the informant brought the deceased who was in injured condition, in his house whereat number of villagers got assembled and he waited 20-25 minutes for the police to come, however, as nobody has come, so the complainant accompanied the victim and proceeded for the police station at 07:30 in the morning in a jeep and the distance of the police station from the house of the complainant/victim was 8 kms. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged and the criminal case as referred to above was registered. It has also come on record that the victim/deceased was put to medical examination on the same day i.e. 15.02.2002 at 09:20 a.m. in the police station itself wherein the Blood Pressure was found to be not recordable, pulse found not palpable and the cause of injury was found to be fire arm injury, serious in nature. Therefore, the deceased was sent to District Hospital at Sultanpur as his condition was quite critical wherein he succumbed to the armed injuries at 09:45 a.m. As the victim died so section 302 of the IPC was also added and during the course of the investigation however, Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 was also put to motion. S.I. Indra Prakash Singh was h
Abu Thakir & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat
Bikau Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar
Binay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar (1997) 1 SCC 283
Bipin Kumar Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal
C. Muniappan & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Chandra Kanth Lakshmi v. State of Maharashtra
Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 1173
Dudh Nath pandey vs state of Utter Pradesh (1981) 2 SCC 166
Gulzari Lal Vs. State of Haryana
Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Haryana
Hari Shankar Vs. State of U.P.
Harjeet Kaur VS. State of Punjab 1999(6) SCC 545
Inder Singh And Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Jagtar Singh Vs. State of Haryana
Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of Haryana
Jumni and Others Vs. State of Haryana
Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. (1995) 5 SCC 518
Karnel Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Koli Chunilal Savji & Another vs. State of Gu jarat 1999(9) SCC 562
Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam Vs. State of A.P.
Kunwarpal @ Surajpal And Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand And Anr.
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra
Laxman Vs. State of Maharashtra
Laxmi (Smt) Vs. Om Prakash and Others
Mafabhai Nagarbhai Raval v. State of Gujarat
Mahraj Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Munnu Raja and Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh -AIR 1976 SC 2199
Paparambaka Rosamma & Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1999 (7) SCC 695
Paras Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar (1999) 2 SCC 126
Paras Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar
Paras Yadav and Others Vs. State of Bihar
Raj Gopal Vs. Muthupandi @ Thavakkalai And Ors.
Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar (1998) 4 SCC 517
Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar
Ram Sanjiwan Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar
Ruli Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana (2002) 7 SCC 691
Saddik @ Lalo Gulam Hussein Shaikh And Ors. Vs. State of Gujrat
Shaikh Sattar Vs. State of Maharashtra
State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh & Ors. AIR 2013 SC 2059
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dal Singh And Ors.
State of Maharashtra vs Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple AIR 1984 SC 63
The court emphasized the credibility of dying declarations as substantive evidence, modifying convictions based on the established intent and involvement of the accused in the crime.
The court upheld the conviction based on a credible dying declaration despite arguments concerning procedural flaws and delays in lodging the FIR, emphasizing the importance of the victim's mental al....
Murder – Non-examination of Doctor who conducted autopsy on dead body of deceased and who prepared post-mortem report is not fatal to case of prosecution.
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.