SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(All) 677

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW
Mrs. Saroj Yadav, Ramesh Sinha, JJ.
Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2262 of 2009
Decided On : 29.06.2022

Advocates:
Advocate appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Piyush Asthana.
For Respondent:Government Advocate, Mr. Shreesh Chandra counsel for the C.B.I.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120B, 302/34 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 313, 482 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25/27 – Criminal Appeal - Offence of Murder – Criminal Conspiracy – Savings of inherent powers of High court - First Information Report (in short FIR) was lodged by complainant- wherein it was stated that He came to play badminton in badminton hall - He (complainant) was also present in stadium. After playing, he was going back on his scooter, somebody fired upon him with an intention to kill him, at north gate of stadium. One who was working in canteen on gate, came to him raising alarm and told that two persons were running in a white colour Maruti Car after firing upon him - Complainant, his colleague, many other players of stadium and two police personnel who were on duty at time, came out, but by that time miscreants had fled away by white Maruti Car - Miscreants were seen while firing, in electric light who were present on spot. He (complainant), and two police personnel carried him in injured condition to Medical College where doctor declared him dead – Held, convict/appellant submitted that recovery of alleged fire arm was not made at pointing out of convict/appellant, but it was allegedly made at pointing out of co-accused (now dead). Therefore conviction of convict/appellant cannot be made on basis of that evidence. evidence available on record shows that co-accused who died during trial made disclosure statement Exhibit Ka-10 in presence of independent witness that pistol used in murder alongwith cartridges given to him, he might get recovered that pistol alongwith cartridges, hidden under earth under a chhapri in a grove of Mango - He can point out that. This disclosure statement has also been proved by an independent witness - Recovery memo of concerned pistol has also been proved by independent witness as well as retired Superintendent of Police (CBI) - Hence there is no error and discrepancy in conclusion reached by trial court in this regard also - Evidence available on record establishes that deceased was killed by firing made by convict/appellant alongwith one another accused by using fire arm in contravention of Section 5 of Arms Act, which is punishable under Section 27 of Arms Act - Hence, conviction and sentence of convict/appellant awarded by trial court punishable under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. and under Section 27 of Arms Act is hereby confirmed and upheld – Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, Mrs. Saroj Yadav, JJ.

(The judgment is pronounced in terms of Chapter VII Sub-rule (2) of Rule (1) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)

(Per Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J. for the Bench)

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the convict/appellant Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu against the judgment and order dated 22.08.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No.1, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.293 of 1989 State Vs. Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu and another, arising out of Case Crime No.302/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short I.P.C.) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow whereby the trial court convicted and sentenced the convict/appellant under Section 302/34 of I.P.C., with life imprisonment coupled with a fine of Rs.40,000/-and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment of three months. The trial court further convicted and sentenced the convict/appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act with five years rigorous imprisonment coupled with a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment of one month.

2. This appeal relates to a very unfortunate and despicable crime, wherein the miscreants silenced the life of an eight time National Badminton Champion Syed Modi, who represented India in various international championships. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal in short are as under:-

    (i) A First Information Report (in short FIR) was lodged by the complainant-Nirmal Singh Saini, Regional Sports Officer, K.D. Singh Babu, Stadium Lucknow on 28.07.1988 presenting a written report Exhibit Ka-1, wherein it was stated that on 28.07.1988 Mr. Syed Modi came to play badminton in the badminton hall at about 4:30 P.M. He (complainant) was also present in the stadium. After playing, at about 7:45 P.M. he was going back on his scooter, somebody fired upon him with an intention to kill him, at the north gate of stadium. One Prem Chand Yadav who was working in the canteen on the gate, came to him raising alarm and told that two persons were running in a white colour Maruti Car after firing upon Syed Modi. The complainant, his colleague Mr. K.H. Jackey, many other players of the stadium and two police personnel who were on duty at the time, came out, but by that time the miscreants had fled away by white Maruti Car. The miscreants were seen while firing upon Syed Modi by Prem Chandra Yadav, Smt. Quaiser (Panwali), Rickshaw Puller and many other persons sitting in the canteen, in the electric light who were present on the spot. He (complainant), Ravi Verma and two police personnel carried Syed Modi in injured condition to Medical College where doctor declared him dead.

(ii) The FIR was registered on 28.07.1988 at about 20:50 hours against two unknown assailants. The investigation of the case started and initially Sri Rajveer Singh Tyagi incharge of Police Station Hazratganj started investigation, conducted the inquest of the dead body of Syed Modi and prepared the necessary papers including the 'Panchayatnama' and sent the dead body to the mortuary of Medical College, Lucknow alongwith a letter to the C.M.O. for conducting the postmortem examination of the corpse.

(iii) The postmortem was conducted on 29.07.1988 at 10:15 AM by a panel of three doctors and they prepared the postmortem report. While the investigation of the case was going on, the State Government recommended that investigation be made by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short CBI). The Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India vide notification No.228/23/88-AVD. II dated 02.8.88 handed over the investigation of the case to the CBI. The CBI registered it as Crime No.RC-2(S)/ 88 SIV.V/SIC. II/SIU.V. After investigation CBI came to the conclusion that Sanjay Singh, Ameeta Kulkarni Modi, Akhilesh Singh, Amar Bahadur Singh, Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu, Jitendra Singh alias Tinku and Balai Singh were the miscreants who were

                      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