IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, VIKAS BUDHWAR, JJ.
State of U.P. - Appellant
Versus
Ram Autar - Respondent
Government Appeal No. 2683 of 1983
Decided On : 12-09-2022
The court reversed the trial court's judgment of acquittal and convicted the accused of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court held that the trial court's judgment was perverse and unsustainable in law. The court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the accused was guilty of the murder.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution's case was that the accused, Ram Autar, had shot and killed the deceased, Babu Singh, in a fit of rage after Babu Singh had slapped the accused's sister. The accused had then fled the scene and remained at large for several years. The prosecution relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses who had seen the accused shoot the deceased, as well as on the recovery of the murder weapon from the accused's house.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had erred in acquitting the accused. The court held that the trial court had failed to properly consider the evidence presented by the prosecution and had instead relied on presumptions and conjectures to reach its conclusion. The court found that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was credible and that it clearly established that the accused had shot and killed the deceased.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused. 2. Whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court had erred in acquitting the accused. The court found that the trial court had failed to properly consider the evidence presented by the prosecution and had instead relied on presumptions and conjectures to reach its conclusion. The court found that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was credible and that it clearly established that the accused had shot and killed the deceased.
Final Decision: The court reversed the trial court's judgment of acquittal and convicted the accused of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000.
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Kumar Birla, J.
1. Heard Sri Ratan Singh, learned AGA appearing for the appellant-State of UP, Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent and perused the record.
2. Present government appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.07.1983 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Fatehpur in Session Trial No. 104 of 1983 (State vs. Ram Autar Kori), arising out of Case Crimes No. 172/1982, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Khakhreru, District Fatehpur.
3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 07.12.1982 the complainant-Shiv Saran Singh along with his brother Babu Singh went to their Gram field situated the western side of the village and at about 1:00 pm (noon), they saw the mother and sister of the accused Ram Autar were plucking Gram leaves in their field. Babu Singh asked them not to pluck the same as the plants were too small but they did not listen and continued to plucking out the gram leaves. On this, Babu Singh inflicted two slaps to the sister of accused-Ram Autar and banished her from his field. On this the mother and sister of the accused returned to their house abusing him. After taking round of the field while Shiv Saran Singh and Babu Singh were coming back to their house for taking bath and meals, when they reached near the house of Ram Autar, accused Ram Autar surrounded them and asked Babu Singh as to why he slapped his sister and took out country made pistol from his waist and fired on the chest of Babu Singh. The alleged incident was witnessed by neighbours Dasrath, Shiv Mohan, Govardhan and others. Ram Raj and Ram Ballaiya also saw the occurrence. When they tried to catch hold the accused, he reloaded the country made pistol, threatened the witnesses and ran away towards west. On receiving gun shot injury, complainant brother Babu Singh fell on the ground and thereafter the injured was placed on the Chabutara of Goverdhan where he died. The accused shot complainant's brother at 2.00 pm. Thereafter, a first information report of the incident was lodged at police station-Khakreu on the same day at 3.00 pm. in the presence of Investigating Officer, who recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The investigating Officer proceeded to place of occurrence and inspected the dead body and sealed the same. Site plan was prepared and after completing investigation a charge-sheet under section 302 IPC was submitted against the accused Ram Autar.
4. In support of prosecution case, PW-1-Shiv Saran Singh, PW-2-Dashrath, PW-3-Station House Officer-Madan Singh and PW-4 Dr. Satish Chandra Srivastava were produced and examined before the Court below.
5. Apart from other formal documents, site plan is Ext. Ka-9, recovery memo of bloodstained and plain earth is Ext. Ka-10, recovery memo recovering one empty cartridge recovered from the place of occurrence is Ex. Ka-11, charge-sheet is Ext. Ka-13 and Post mortem report is Ex. Ka-14.
6. PW-1-Shiv Sharan Singh, who was the eye witness of the incident, in his statement had stated that he works in Maya Press, Allahabad and used to do the same job during the days of the incident and he had come home on leave. He further stated that deceased Babu Singh was his younger brother and at the time of incident he was working as Constable in the Police Department and was posted in Allahabad and was also on leave during those days. He further deposed that his house and the accused's house is on the same road and when we come from our field, the accused house comes first and thereafter we would reach to his own house. He further stated that the residence of Ram Autar was in front of the house of Dashrath Dhobi and thereafter there is residence of Goverdhan. While narrating the incident he stated that on 07.12.1982 at about 11.30 am when he and his younger brother Babu Singh had gone to their field they found that the mother and sister of the accused Ram Autar were plucking gram leaves, which was objected to by h
Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat
Anwar Ali and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Nagabhushan vs. State of Karnataka
Achhar Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Nirmal Singh and Another vs. State of Bihar
Narendra Nath Khaware vs. Parasnath Khaware and Others
Ram Swaroop and Others vs. State of U.P.
State of Rajasthan vs. Satyanarayan
Shambhoo Missir & Anr. v. State of Bihar
Shailendra Pratap & Anr. v. State of U.P.
Narendra Singh v. State of M.P.
Budh Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P.
State of U.P. v. Ramveer Singh
S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (D) by his LRs. & Ors.
Perla Somasekhara Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P.
Ram Singh alias Chhaju v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Sheo Swarup and Ors. v. King Emperor
Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab
M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra
Khedu Mohton & Ors. v. State of Bihar
Sambasivan and Ors. State of Kerala
Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P.
State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and Anr.
Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka
Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh
State of Rajasthan v. Naresh @ Ram Naresh
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Banne alias Baijnath & Ors.
Dhanapal v. State by Public Prosecutor, Madras
State of U.P. v. Krishna Master
Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn.
Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons
Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE
Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P.
Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police
Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal
Dhanaj Singh v. State of Punjab
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat
State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy
The presumption of innocence remains paramount, and an acquittal can only be overturned if the trial court's findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal upheld due to unreliable eyewitness testimony and lack of corroborative evidence.
Reliable eye-witness testimony of natural witnesses, consistent with medical evidence and prompt FIR, sustains murder conviction under 302/34 IPC despite alleged enmity.
The reliability of eyewitness testimony and the establishment of motive are crucial in proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
THE EVIDENCE OF CLOSE RELATIONS WHO TESTIFIED FACTS RELATING TO OCCURRENCE BE NOT REJECTED MERELY ON GROUND THAT THEY HAPPENED TO BE RELATIVES. EVIDENCE OF SUCH WITNESSES BE SCRUTINIZED VERY CAREFULL....
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.