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) 1427

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Manoj Misra, Saumitra Dayal Singh, JJ.
Amar Singh - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of U.P. - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2357 of 2014
Decided On : 20-01-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For The Petitioner: Dileep Kumar, R.P. Singh, Rajeev Kumar
For The Respondent:Govt. Advocate, Jitendra Pal Singh

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 157 and 174 - U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section 2/3 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25/27 - Gunshot/Bullet hit on his chest, near his neck – Offence of Murder - Appeal against conviction - Inside verandah of that house, appellant then hurled verbal abuses at deceased for not giving up his fair-price-shop license, despite being earlier warned - For that reason, accused persons threatened to kill Ram Singh - Upon exhortation offered by appellant fired a shot at deceased from his country made pistol - Bullet hit deceased on his chest, near his neck and deceased died on spot - Held, In absence of testimony of any of panch witnesses, the recovery thus claimed by prosecution is rendered highly doubtful in absence of any testimony of recovery witnesses and also on account of inordinate and completely unexplained delay in recovery of the assault weapon - Charge of offence under Sections 25/27 Arms Act, 1959, as discussed above, is found not proved - Prosecution led evidence beyond reasonable doubt to establish that appellant caused the murder of deceased when he entered the house of (PW-2) and shot at deceased on his chest - Gunshot hit deceased in the neck region to which he succumbed later. Doubts, if any, as to other peripheral facts, as may exist, have no material bearing on the charge levelled against appellant. That charge is found proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has been rightly convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine Rs. 5,000/-. The judgement and order of the trial court, on that count is upheld - Appeal partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.

1. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajiv Kumar and Sri Muktesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant (through video conference) and Sri Ankit Shrivastava, learned AGA for the State.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Amar Singh, against the judgment and order dated 26.03.2014 passed by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi, Special Judge, Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.5, Etah, in Gangster Session Trial No. 260 of 2007. By that judgement and order, the present appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine Rs. 5,000/-. He is to suffer a further imprisonment of one month in the event of his failure to pay that fine. Also, he has been convicted for offence under Sections 25/27 Arms Act, 1959 and awarded punishment of imprisonment of one year. Punishments for both offences are to run concurrently.

3(i). According to the prosecution case the First Information Report (Exhibit Ka-20), hereinafter referred to as the FIR, came to be lodged in Case Crime No. 521 of 2007, on 30.07.2007, at 09:30 p.m., at Police Station -Nidhauli Kalan, District-Etah, by Chadami Lal (PW2), son of Chiraunji Lal, upon a written application submitted by him in the handwriting of his son Diwari Lal. The FIR disclosed that the present appellant Amar Singh along with Subhash reached the house of the deceased Ram Singh (brother of PW-2), at 06:30 p.m., on 30.07.2007. Inside the verandah of that house, the appellant Amar Singh then hurled verbal abuses at Ram Singh for not giving up his fair-price-shop license, despite being earlier warned. For that reason, the accused persons threatened to kill Ram Singh. Upon the exhortation offered by Subhash, Amar Singh fired a shot at Ram Singh from his country made pistol. The bullet hit Ram Singh on his chest, near his neck. Ram Singh died on the spot. Then, Amar Singh and Subhash fled towards the village, firing aerial shots from their country made pistols, holding out threat of similar fate to anyone who may speak against them. The occurrence is stated to have been witnessed by Chadami Lal/informant (PW-2) as also his sons Mahavir and Beni Ram and also by one Saudan Singh (PW-1), son of Shri Ram.

3(ii). The ‘Panchayatnama’ (Exhibit Ka-7) of the dead body is stated to have been prepared on 30.07.2007, from 22.30 hours to 24.00 hours. It bears the date and time of the FIR being lodged at 9:30 p.m., on 30.07.2007. Amongst others, it records that the body of the deceased was lying in front of the informant’s house, in the veranda, on a ‘charpai’/cot. The ‘Panchayatnama’ records Narsingh Pal (brother of the appellant Amar Singh), Dharam Singh, Satya Ram, Kamal Singh and Jai Pal as the ‘panch’ witnesses. Two recovery memos, both dated 30.07.2007, are also stated to have been drawn at that time, disclosing recovery of blood stained earth (Exhibit Ka-5) and of one bullet (Exhibit Ka-6) - described as the ammunition used in the assault. It had passed through the body of the deceased and was found lying at the place of incident.

3(iii). Thereafter, the accused persons Ram Singh and Subhash appear to have surrendered on 06.08.2007. Further, according to the prosecution version, while in custody, both Amar Singh and Subhash made similar confessions to the S.H.O. Hari Shanker Misra (PW-7), on 07.08.2007 and offered to get recovered the weapons used in the occurrence. Upon an order passed by the Magistrate on 18.08.2007, it is claimed, they pointed out and thus got recovered two country made pistols found buried at two separate spots, both to the south of the agricultural field of Subhash. The weapon disclosed to have been recovered at the pointing out of the present appellant Amar Singh contained an empty cartridge case in its barrel along with a live bullet. A common recovery memo is stated to have been

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