Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 897

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Krishna Veer @ Pinkoo – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Anr. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.487 of 2020
Decided on : 29-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Durgesh Kumar Singh, Anshu Chaudhary
For the Respondent: A.N. Mulla, G.P. Singh, Sri Narain Mishra,

The prosecution must prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the court must consider all evidence, including subsequent statements of witnesses, recovery memos, and postmortem reports. The court cannot convict the appellant under the SC/ST Act without evidence of intentional insult to the deceased.

Headnote:
No specific statutes are referenced in the judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution case is based on eyewitness testimonies, but the witnesses have turned hostile. The appellant argues that the witnesses' subsequent statements were not properly considered and that the conviction is based on insufficient evidence. The appellant also argues that there was no evidence of intentional insult to the deceased, which is required for conviction under the SC/ST Act. The court finds that the witnesses' hostility and the lack of evidence cast doubt on the prosecution's case. The court also finds that the appellant cannot be convicted under the SC/ST Act. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted.
Finding of the Court:
The court examines the testimonies of the witnesses, the recovery memo, and the postmortem report. The court finds that the witnesses' subsequent statements contradict their earlier testimonies and that the recovery memo only mentions one empty cartridge, despite the prosecution's claim of two shots being fired. The court also notes that the postmortem report does not support the prosecution's timeline of events. Based on these findings, the court concludes that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court finds that the witnesses' hostility, the lack of evidence, and the contradictions in the prosecution's case cast doubt on the appellant's guilt. The court also determines that the appellant cannot be convicted under the SC/ST Act due to the lack of evidence of intentional insult to the deceased. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted.
Result: The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside. The appellant is to be released from jail if not wanted in any other case.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Sri Durgesh Kumar Singh and Sri Anshu Chaudhary for the appellant and Sri A.N. Mulla/Sri G.P. Singh/Sri Shri Narain Mishra, learned A.G.A’s for the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act, Mathura in Sessions Trial No.239/2003 (State vs. Krishna Veer and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.130/2001, under Section 302 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Baldev, District Mathura, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.30,000/-, in default of payment of fine, they have to further undergo imprisonment of one year and under Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, rigorous life imprisonment and fine of Rs.30,000/-, in default of payment of fine, they have to further undergo imprisonment of one year, both the sentences will run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case as per the First Information Report lodged by Ram Khilari (P.W.-1) is that applicant is resident of Laxmi Nagar, Police Station Jamunapar, District Mathura. On 5.6.2001, applicant had come to his brother’s village – Darghata, Police Station Baldeo, District Mathura who lives in his in-law’s house. On 5.6.2001, applicant’s brother and sister-in-law Smt. Sukhdevi were sitting on the platform outside the house after taking food. One Krishna Veer @ Pinkoo son of Maharaj Singh Jaat, resident of village Darghata, Police Station Baldeo, District Mathura came to the house of Vimla Devi, wife of late Devjeet who is neighbour of applicant’s brother Mohan Lal, at about 9.30 P.M., with a bad intention, then Vimla Devi raised a noise, the applicant’s brother Mohan Lal saw Krishna Veer is coming out from her house, he interrupted him then Krishna Veer told to applicant’s brother “sale dhar”, you sit silent otherwise I will kill you. There was exchange of talk between them then Maharaj Singh, son of Deep Chandra Jatt who is father of Krishna Veer came running with country-made pistol in his hand and started abusing him and commented on his caste then applicant’s brother told that why you are abusing me, in between Maharaj Singh fired shot upon applicant’s brother Mohan Lal from country-made pistol which passed from his side then Maharaj Singh told his son Krishna Veer @ Pinkoo to fire shot upon him then Krishna Veer took out his country-made pistol from his side and fired shot upon applicant’s brother which hit his chest and Mohan Lal died on spot. Bengali son of Katila and Atar Singh son of Shiv Lal witnessed the incident. Dead body of applicant’s brother is lying on the spot. Legal action be taken by writing a report.

4. On the basis of written report, Case Crime No. 130/2001 under Sections 302 IPC and section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act was registered against accused Krishnaveer Singh and Maharaj Singh on 5.06.2001 at 10:45 PM and investigation of the case was handed over to station Officer who went to the place of incident. Panchnama of the dead body was conducted and after completing the formalities, dead body was sent for postmortem, the spot map of the place of incident was prepared, one empty cartridge was recovered by the police from the place of incident, the memo was accordingly prepared. Investigation Officer submitted charge-sheet against accused Krishanveer Singh under section-320 IPC and section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act. No charge-sheet has been sent against Maharaj Singh. Charges were framed against accused Krishanveer Singh under section-320 IPC and section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act to which he denied and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its case, produced as many as 9 witnesses whose particulars are as follows:

P.W.1 Ram Khilari son of Shri Ram (First informant and alleged eye- witness)

P.W.2 Atar Singh son of Shiv Lal (alleged eye-witness)

P.W.3 Dr. Subhash Chandra Chief Medical Officer

P.W.4 Sukh Devi wife of late Mohanlal (allege eye-witness)

P.W.5 Veer Singh son of Kh