Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Sunita Agarwal, Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, JJ.
Aman Singh and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2682 of 1982
Decided On : 25-05-2022
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 302/149, 147 , 148 and 396 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 164 and 161 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 8 - Offence of murder – Punishment for Rioting - Examination of witness by police - First informant Police Station- District, evidence on record both documentary and oral - First informant along with his real brother Village Police Station District went to their agricultural field of 'jowar’ to take care and protection of the crops - First informant handed over his licensed - Gun no.1516 of 12 bore with 25 cartridges to his brother ‘Ramphal’ and went himself into field to cut grass. After cutting the grass at about 5:00 p.m. in the evening, when day light was still existing, first informant lift bundle of grass and moved on the way to his house with his brother ‘Ramphal’ ahead of him - witnesses began to gather near spot of incident, Kishora Nai made a fire from the licensed gun of the informant - Dead body of (deceased), informant’s brother was lying in the agricultural field of Baldu Lodhi and some of the villagers stayed near the dead body - 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 evidence in its entirety. [Para 66,67]
Finding of the Court: Statement of sole witness as to mode and manner adopted by accused appellants and weapons used by them which stood proved with further corroboration from post-mortem report and evidence of medical witness P.W.4 - Reinforced by circumstances coupled with motive of the accused persons to commit crime which is indicative of conclusions that accused persons are real offenders who had committed alleged crime, however, such occurrence had taken place in broad day light and had witnessed the entire occurrence from a short distance of about 15-20 paces - There is no possibility of committing any mistake by him, moreover, it will be indeed perverse against ordinary course of human nature and conduct for to permit real assailants of deceased ‘Ramphal’ to go unpunished and instead of implicating accused persons just with a view to satisfy his own ego - Evidence as to presence on spot of incident at relevant time and date of incident proved to be probable and natural, free from contradictions, exaggeration or embellishment - Some minor contradictions or inconsistency are immaterial, irrelevant details which are not in the capacity in anyway corrode credibility of witness cannot be labelled as omission or contradictions.
Result: Appeal is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
(Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J.)
1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.10.1988 passed by the Special Judge, Lalitpur in Session Trial No.15 of 1980 (State Vs. Aman Singh, Hallu and Bhaiyan) and Session Trial No.23 of 1980 (State Vs. Kishora), convicting the accused persons under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and further convicting the appellant Bhaiyan under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Rest of the appellants namely Aman Singh, Hallu and Kishora have been convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. All the sentences are to run concurrently.
2. The aforesaid two Sessions Trial Nos. 15 of 1980 and 23 of 1980 were connected by the trial judge as they have arisen from crime case no.53 of 1979, Police Station Saujana, District Lalitpur and the evidences against the accused in both the cases being the same, recorded in the leading Sessions trial No. 15 of 1980.
Factual Matrix
3. The prosecution case as emerged from the written information given by the first informant, Kashiram on 22.11.1979 in the Police Station-Saujna, District Lalitpur, the evidence on record both documentary and oral to state briefly as follows:-
This written information dated 22.11.1979 was given by the informant in the police station Saujana at about 8:00 a.m. The first information report was lodged accordingly, on the basis of written information under Section 396 I.P.C. The distance of the spot of the incident from the Police Station Saujana is show
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....
The testimonies of related witnesses must be scrutinized carefully, especially when inconsistencies exist and the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The court found the testimony of the eyewitnesses to be trustworthy and reliable, disregarding minor contradictions and inconsistencies in their statements.
Interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable and should be scrutinized with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being partisan. Minor discrepancies and contradictions should not ....
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 ....
Conviction for mass murder under 302/149 IPC set aside due to unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence from related witnesses; doubtful night identification, improbable presence/story; benefit of do....
The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony and medical evidence.
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
