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
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:-
(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
Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani Vs. State of Maharashtra. 1982 SCC (Cri.) 334.
Wakil Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar. 1981 SCC (Cri.) 634
Hasib Vs. State of Bihar. 1972 (4) SCC 773.
Shaikh Umar Ahmad Shaikh and another Vs. State of Maharashtra. 1998 SCC (Cri.) 1276.
Chaman Vs. State of U.P. 1993 SCC (Cri.) 212
Manzoor Vs. State of U.P. 1982 SCC (Cri.) 356 and Suleman Vs. State of U.P.
Mohd. Anwar Vs. State of Delhi 2000 SCC (Cri.) 279 and Tasleem Vs. State of NCT Delhi.
State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. V.C. Shukla and another. 1980 (2) SCC 665.
Prakash Kumar Vs. State of Gujarat. 2005 (2) SCC 409.
Dilip and others Vs. State of M.P. 2007 (1) SCC (Cri.) 377
Gulam Sarwar Vs. State of Bihar 2014 (2) SCC (Cri.) 195
Malkhansingh v. State of M.P. (AIR 2003 SC 2669)
Vadivelu Thevar & Anr. v. State of Madras; AIR 1957 SC 614;
Kunju @ Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu
Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal AIR 2010 SC 3638;
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.