IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, JJ.
Karan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2959 of 1984
Decided On : 25-05-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 148, 149, 396 and 307 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 164 and 161 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 8 and 134 – Offence of murder – Examination of accused by police – Rioting and armed with deadly weapon - Appeal against Conviction - First informant along with his real brother Police Station District went to their agricultural field of 'jowar’ to take care and protection of 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 evening, when day light was still existing, first informant lift bundle of grass and moved on way to his house with his brother ‘Ramphal’ ahead of him - About ten paces away from their field on way to their home - reached near agricultural field accused persons armed with axe armed with sickle armed with axe armed with axe, all residents Police Station - Inflicted blows of axe on him - Informant’s brother began to scream and informant was also raising alarm for help - Five assailants fled from the spot snatching the licensed gun, cartridges and wrist watch from hands of deceased -Some minor contradictions or inconsistency are immaterial, irrelevant details which are not in the capacity in anyway corrode the credibility of witness cannot be labelled as omission or contradictions. [Para 76]
Finding of the Court:
Contradiction in the statement of sole witness as to the mode and manner adopted by accused with weapons used by them which stood proved with further corroboration from post-mortem report and the evidence of medical witness P.W.12 has to be accepted - Nothing carved out from both witnesses against this proved state of things in the cross examination - It is further reinforced by circumstances coupled with motive of the accused persons to commit the crime which is indicative of conclusions that accused persons are real offenders who had committed alleged crime - Taken place in broad day light and (the first informant) 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 the ordinary course of human nature and conduct for Kashiram to permit the real assailants of deceased ‘Ramphal’ to go unpunished and instead of implicating the accused persons just with a view to satisfy his own ego - Appeal against judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge.
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 27.09.1984 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lalitpur in Session Trial No. 47 of 1983 (State vs. Karan Singh), convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to undergo life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for one year respectively (Life imprisonment under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C.). From the same Case Crime No. 53 of 1979, under Section 396 I.P.C. Police Station Saujana, District Lalitpur, three sessions trial were instituted i.e. Sessions Trial No. 15 of 1980 (State vs. Aman Singh and Others), Sessions Trial No. 23 of 1980 (State vs. Kishora) and Sessions Trial No. 47 of 1983 (State vs. Karan Singh).
Factual Matrix
2. The prosecution case as emerged from the written information given by the first informant, Kashiram on 22.11.1979 in the Police Station-Saujana, District Lalitpur, the evidence on record both the documentary and oral, are stated 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 shown as about 13 k.m. in the F.I.R. towards South-West from the police station.
After registering the F.I.R. police reached at the spot of the incident and started the proceeding of inquest, prepared site map on the orientation of witnesses, collected the blood stained soil and plain earth soil from the spot of the incident, prepared memo thereof and sent the body for postmortem. After getting the post mort
Ashok Kumar Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar
Babu @ Balasubramaniam vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat
Brahm Swaroop and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Dalip Singh vs. State of Punjab
Dayal Singh and Others vs. State of Uttaranchal
Hari Obula Reddy vs. State of A.P. (1981) 3 SCC 675 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 795
Kartik Malhar vs. State of Bihar
Mahendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Mano Dutt and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Sheo Shankar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and Another
Shivaji Sahab Rao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra
Sucha Singh vs. State of Punjab
Shyam Babu vs. State of U.P. (2012) 8 SCC 651
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.