Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sunita Agarwal, Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, JJ.
Prahlad and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2170, 2169 of 1983
Decided On : 12-04-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 324/149 – Offence of Murder - Appeal Against Conviction - Informant at relevant time of incident complained of was on his shop neighboring to that of his nephew, talking with his relative (P.W.-2) - His nephew was making lassi on his shop - Accused persons came together pouncing from the side of the railway station towards shop of Ramashre - Prahlad shouted exhortingly, “this is man, kill him – Whether to make any difference as to acceptability of defence taken by accused persons in case - D.W.-1 who was called as defence witness to produce the dak bahi (Despatch Register) which he was unable to produce before Court for reason dak bahi having been weeded out - Object of the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is merely to ascertain whether a person died under suspicious circumstances or met with an unnatural death and, if so, what was its apparent cause (Para 114).
Finding of the court :
Mere denial from presence on spot and involvement in commission of crime as against proved case of prosecution in this regard is not acceptable - Court have perused statement of defense witnesses - Whether to make any difference as to the acceptability of defence taken by the accused persons in case - D.W.-1 who was called as defence witness to produce the dak bahi (Despatch Register) which he was unable to produce before Court for reason dak bahi having been weeded out – No argument could be made about relevancy of dak bahi in case as general diary of police maintained as per rules for entering day to day events and the relevant extract of case diary had been produced before court - Likewise, D.W.-2, reader of Court of District Magistrate was also examined for purpose of proving application of accused persons addressed to District Magistrate but how relevant and admissible that fact would be could not be explained - Evidence of this witness, therefore, is not of any avail against proved case of prosecution with regard to identification and involvement of accused persons in incident at relevant time on spot of incident in killing of deceased.
Results : Ordered accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J.
1. The instant two criminal appeals have arisen from the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.09.1983 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria in Sessions Trial No.92 of 1982, under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. It would be relevant and pertinent to mention, at the very outset, that initially in the written complaint and the first information report registered thereon by the police against five accused persons namely (1) Prahlad, S/o Ram Hit Yadav, R/o Village Bhimpur, (2) Ram Oudh, S/o Ram Hit Yadav, R/o Village Bhimpur (3) Prahlad S/o Bhirgun, R/o Village Moora Dih, (4) Sudama of Village Chali Chaur, Police Station Rudrapur and (5) Brijraj S/o Mahipat Yadav, R/o Village Khairaich, Police Station Rampur Karkhana, District Deoria, the case was committed to the sessions for trial against the Prahlad, S/o Ram Hit Yadav, R/o Village Bhimpur, Ram Oudh, S/o Ram Hit Yadav, R/o Village Bhimpur, Prahlad S/o Bhirgun, R/o Village Moora Dih and Brijraj S/o Mahipat Yadav, R/o Village Khairaich, Police Station Rampur Karkhana, District Deoria for the reason that the accused Sudama died before the committal of the case in a police encounter.
3. After completion of the trial, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deoria recorded conviction of accused persons as under:-
(II) Prahlad S/o Bhirgun - convicted under Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149, 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and is sentenced life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo R.I. for a period of four months for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and to undergo R.I. for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
(III) Prahlad S/o Ram Hit Yadav - convicted under Sections 148, 302/149, 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and is sentenced life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo R.I. for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and one year R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
(IV) Brijraj - convicted under Sections 148, 302/149, 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and is sentenced life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo R.I. for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and one year R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. Criminal Appeal No.2170 of 1983 has been preferred by the appellants (1) Prahlad, S/o Ram Hit Yadav, (2) Brijraj S/o Mahipat Yadav and (3) Ram Oudh, S/o Ram Hit Yadav. Learned counsel Sri Yashwant Pratap Singh put forth the arguments on behalf of the only surviving appellant Brijraj in this appeal.
5. Criminal Appeal No.2169 of 1983 has been preferred on behalf of the sole appellant Prahlad, S/o Bhirgun separately against the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence described here in above. Learned senior counsel Sri Brijesh
Point of law : Object of the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is merely to ascertain whether a person died under suspicious circumstances or met with an unnatural death and, if so, what was its ....
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on the established common object of the unlawful assembly, supported by credible witness testimonies and medical evidence.
The prosecution must prove the formation of an unlawful assembly and the shared common object beyond reasonable doubt, and essential witnesses must be produced to unfold the narrative.
Point of law: In the absence of such finding as also any overt act on the part of the accused persons, mere fact that they were armed would not be sufficient to prove common object.
Point of Law : While appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, may not prompt the court to reject the evide....
Conviction for murder upheld based on unlawful assembly doctrine; presence in assembly sufficient for accountability under Section 149 IPC.
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
