Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, J.J. MUNIR, JJ.
Pradeep & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 6987 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No. 6988 of 2009
Decided On : 24-02-2022
Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 read with Section 34 – Appeal against Conviction – Offence of Murder - Informant and his son, upon seeing two approach carrying fire-arms, fled towards the village. Both the brothers gave the informant and his son a chase and at 10:30 in the morning, shot informant's son in front of one Ram Prakash's house informant's son died on the spot - whether he is dead or alive. It has figured in the judgment of the learned Trial Judge that a photostat copy of the FIR is on record, where, relating to the abduction of Satya Prakash, a crime was registered against Pradeep and some other persons under Section 364 IPC, Satya Prakash was no longer available to testify in the dock - It is for this reason that the FIR lodged by Satya Prakash has been proved by PW-2, Ram Autar, who is scribe of the written first information (Para 86,88).
Finding of the Court : At no stage did the prosecution project a case that it was the appellant, who had fired at the deceased, rather it was their consistent stand that it was A-5, who had taken out a pistol from his possession and fired at the victim on his chest and he had succumbed to said injuries, we are left wondering as to where was the occasion for the trial court to have convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC on the ground of recovery of the weapon of offence? only role allegedly attributed to appellant in the entire incident was that he had grabbed the victim by his face and thrashed him by saying that "Tu hamare khilaf gawahi dega", appellant along with the other accused persons had started beating Jeet, who tried to save himself by running towards a nearby country liquor shop. On reaching near the said country liquor shop, appellant and the other accused persons had again caught hold of Jeet and thrashed him prosecution version has consistently been that it was A-5, who had taken out a pistol and fired at Jeet. That being admitted case of the prosecution throughout and the trial court having acquitted A-5 for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, conviction of the appellant for the said offence is not sustainable only on basis of alleged recovery of the weapon of offence on his disclosure statement.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
J.J. Munir, J.
1. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.6987 of 2009 and the connected Criminal Appeal No.6988 of 2009, both arising from the judgment and order of Mr. Umesh Chandra, the then Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No.1, Etah dated 27.10.2009, convicting the appellants, Pradeep and Akhilesh in Sessions Trial No.149 of 2007 of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the appellant, Akhilesh alone in Sessions Trial No.148 of 2007 of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, [for short, 'the Arms Act']. The appellants have been sentenced in the manner as hereinafter detailed. While the appellants, Pradeep and Akhilesh have been sentenced to life imprisonment for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860, [for short, 'IPC'], the appellant, Akhilesh has been sentenced separately for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act to suffer three years' rigorous imprisonment. The appellants have further been sentenced to a fine of Rs.5000/- each for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and upon default, ordered to suffer six months' simple imprisonment additionally. A fine of Rs.1000/- has been imposed upon the appellant, Akhilesh for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and upon default, he has been ordered to suffer a month's simple imprisonment additionally. So far as the appellant Akhilesh is concerned, there is a direction that both sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The facts giving rise to the Appeals are these:
A First Information Report, [for short, 'FIR'] dated 18.11.2006 was lodged by Satya Prakash son of Buddhpal Singh, a resident of Village Diuna Kalan, falling within the local limits of Police Station Jaithra in the Sessions Division of Etah. The FIR was registered at 10 minutes past noon (12.10 p.m.) on 18.11.2006, regarding an incident that took place earlier in the day, at half past ten (10.30 a.m.), in the morning hours. The FIR was registered at Police Station Jaithra as Case Crime No.238 of 2006, under Sections 302 and 504 IPC, Police Station Jaithra, District Etah.
3. According to the FIR, the informant was a native of Village Diuna Kalan, Police Station Jaithra. To the south of the village, the informant and Pradeep son of Jagdish, also a native of the same village, had a common tubewell (described in the FIR as a boring). It was said that on 18.11.2006, that is the day when the FIR was lodged, the informant, along with his son Harveer, had proceeded to the tubewell to irrigate his fields. They had reached the tubewell to start the engine when Pradeep and Akhilesh alighted there, and abusing the two, asked the informant and his son not to run the tubewell. This led to a dispute between them with two on each side, whereupon Pradeep and Akhilesh went back to the village and fetched a country-made pistol and a country-made rifle. The informant and his son, upon seeing the two approach carrying fire-arms, fled towards the village. Both the brothers gave the informant and his son a chase and at 10:30 in the morning, shot the informant's son in front of one Ram Prakash's house. The informant's son died on the spot. The first information further records that Rajendra Singh son of Khem Karan, Ajaypal son of Ramdeen and Ram Prakash son of Pokhpal Singh, besides other natives of the village, were present, who witnessed the occurrence. It was also reported that the dead body was lying at the site of occurrence. This written information was signed by the first informant and scribed by Ram Autar son of Gokul Singh, also a resident of Village Diuna Kalan.
4. On the basis of the said information, Case Crime No.238 of 2006, under Sections 302, 504 IPC was registered at Police Station Jaithra vide G.D. No.30. The Station Officer left the station at 12:10 hours. The Po
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
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 ....
Reliability of evidence and witness credibility are crucial for criminal conviction; discrepancies in testimony and FIR registration can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; significant inconsistencies and investigative lapses led to reasonable doubt in the evidence presented.
When evidence of eye-witnesses are not trust worthy to believe, then motive place an important role to prove guilt of accused.
The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.
The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on uncorroborated witness testimony, especially from related parties, is insufficient for conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and the importance of credible and consistent witness testimonies.
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
