IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Anjani Kumar Mishra, Chandra Kumar Rai, JJ.
Ramswaroop @ Chotaka – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1921, 1922, 1920, 2439 of 2011
Decided On : 04-03-2022
Criminal Law Amendment Act - Section 7 - Arms Act - Section 25 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34 – Appeal against Conviction – Offence of Murder - First informant husband aged about 36 years along with son Ajeet and Sujeet and Dewar went in Tilak Ceremony, there was too much rush there and everybody was sitting in order to take dinner of Tilak Ceremony and it was 9.00 P.M, sons of brother-in-law of Chotka, son of Sita Ram came to her husband from whom dispute relating to house is going on, they dragged the husband towards hand pipe of Hemchandra Yadav, thereafter, Shiv Prakash and Badka catch hold her husband and Ramswaroop @ Chotka and Suresh who were armed with country-made pistol in their hand, fired and murdered his husband - Her son and Dewar rushed up to escape him but accused pushed them so they fell down - Due to dragging her husband and open firing, resulting into murder, stampede occurred on spot and people were running away, leaving the dinner - Accused went in east direction with country-made pistol in their hand, dead body of her husband is lying on spot. Prayer was made to lodge the report and legal action be taken – Para 33,34.
Finding of the Court: Postmortem report it is mentioned that stomach contained semi-digested food, small intestine was empty and large intestine filled with fecal matter and gases. P.W.-6 Doctor in his cross-examination stated that deceased must have taken food 2-3 hour before but from the FIR and statement of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, it has come that deceased was going to take food in the Tilak Ceremony - So prosecution case is false and cannot be believed. Accordingly, medical evidence also falsifies prosecution case - evidence of the alleged eye witnesses produced by prosecution does not inspire confidence. There exists a doubt whether they are eye-witnesses of the incident. Oral evidence is also not consistent with the medical evidence, FIR is ante-timed and there are no independent witness of the incident. Prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellants-accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Result: Appeals are allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla assisted by Sri K.K. Pandey and Sri K.K. Mishra, learned counsels for the appellants and Smt. Manju Thakur, the learned AGA for the State.
1. These criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.3.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 309 of 2006, arising out of Case Crime No.50/2006, State vs. Darshrath and others, under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Ashothar, District Fatehpur, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants Dashrath @ Badka, Ramswaroop @ Chotka, Suresh and Shivpersona @ Bantwa for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.7000/-and in default of payment of fine, they have to further undergo imprisonment of 1 year and sentencing them under Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act for imprisonment of 3 months and all the sentences will run concurrently. Further accused-appellant Ramswaroop @ Chotka was also convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act in S.T. No.312 of 2006, arising out of Case Crime No.64/2006, State vs. Ramswaroop, P.S. Ashothar, District Fatehpur and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and a fine of Rs.2000/-and in default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo imprisonment of 3 months and all the sentences will run concurrently. Further accused appellant Suresh was also convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act in S.T. No. 313/2006, arising out of Case Crime No.56/2006, P.S. Ashothar, District Fatehpur and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and a fine of Rs.2000/- and default of payment of fine, he has to undergo imprisonment of 3 months and all the sentences will run concurrently.
2. Since all the four appeals have been filed against the same judgment, hence all the four appeals are being heard and decided jointly by common judgment.
3. Briefly the facts of the case are as follows :-
First informant Asha Devi, wife of Shri Shiv Singh is resident of village-Bensari, P.S. Asothar, District Fatehpur. On 4.5.2006, her husband, Shiv Singh aged about 36 years along with son Ajeet and Sujeet and Dewar Jai Singh went in the Tilak Ceremony of Shiv Pratap, brother of Ram Ashrey Gupta of the same village, there was too much rush there and everybody was sitting in order to take dinner of Tilak Ceremony and it was 9.00 P.M. Dashrath @ Badka, Ramswaroop @ Chotka, sons of Ram Dularey, Shiv Prakash Yadav, brother-in-law of Chotka, resident of village-Ajhei and Suresh, son of Sita Ram came to her husband from whom dispute relating to house is going on, they dragged the husband towards the hand pipe of Hemchandra Yadav, thereafter, Shiv Prakash and Badka catch hold her husband and Ramswaroop @ Chotka and Suresh who were armed with country-made pistol in their hand, fired and murdered his husband. Her son and Dewar rushed up to escape him but accused pushed them so they fell down. Due to dragging her husband and open firing, resulting into murder, stampede occurred on the spot and people were running away, leaving the dinner. Accused went in east direction with country-made pistol in their hand, the dead body of her husband is lying on spot. Prayer was made to lodge the report and legal action be taken.
4. On the basis of written report (Ext. Ka-8), chik no. 36 of 2006, case crime no. 50 of 2006 under Section 302 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act was registered on 4.5.2006 at 22.30 with P.S. Ashothar against accused Dashrath @ Badka, Ramswaroop @ Chotka, Shiv Prakash Yadav and Suresh. chik FIR is on record as Ext. Ka-15. The investigation of the case was taken up by Sri Anand Kumar Singh, S.O. Asothar and relevant entry was made in general diary vide rapat no. 28 at 22.30 (Ext. Ka-6). On 5.5.2006 at 00.05 inquest was conducted on the dead body of deceased Shiv Singh and prepared inquest report (Ext. Ka-21). He also prepared letter to C.M.O. (Ext. Ka-22), letter to R.I. (Ext. Ka-23), challan
Conviction set aside - FIR is ante-timed and there are no independent witness of the incident. Prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellants-accused beyond reasonable doubt.
As the medical evidence does not support the manner of assault on the victim. It also lends support to the defence case, such a wound could not be possible looking to the position of the victim & per....
Point of law: Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting ....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies and investigative delays can undermine its credibility.
The prosecution's case failed due to significant contradictions in witness testimonies and procedural lapses, leading to reasonable doubt, thus necessitating acquittal.
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.