Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SUNEET KUMAR, VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, JJ.
State – Appellant
Versus
Ram Naresh and Others – Respondents
Government Appeal No. 3339 of 1985
Decided On : 18-08-2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL - [SECTION 302/149, 307/149 I.P.C.] - [ACQUITTAL] - [SET ASIDE] - [GUILTY] - [LIFE IMPRISONMENT] - [FINE] - [SET-OFF] - [CUSTODY] - [COMPLIANCE REPORT] - [RETURN OF LOWER COURT RECORD].
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution case was that the accused persons, along with two others who died during the pendency of the appeal, had fired gunshots and caused injuries with lathis and gadasas at the complainant's family during a panchayat meeting convened to settle a dispute between the accused and the complainant's family. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges. The State appealed against the acquittal.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court found that the trial court's finding was perverse and against the weight of evidence. The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused were guilty of the offences charged. The court set aside the trial court's judgment and order and convicted the accused of murder under Section 302 read with 149 IPC. The court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000/- on each accused, with a default sentence of two years' further rigorous imprisonment.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court's finding of acquittal was perverse and against the weight of evidence. 2. Whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 3. Whether the accused were guilty of the offences charged.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appellate court held that the trial court's finding of acquittal was perverse and against the weight of evidence because: a. The trial court had ignored the consistent testimony of the ocular witnesses. b. The trial court had focused on minor discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses to discredit their evidence. c. The trial court had failed to consider the corroborative evidence, such as the medical evidence, the post-mortem report, and the site plan. 2. The appellate court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt because: a. The ocular witnesses had given consistent and credible testimony identifying the accused as the assailants. b. The medical evidence and the post-mortem report corroborated the testimony of the ocular witnesses. c. The site plan supported the testimony of the ocular witnesses and the prosecution's theory of the case. 3. The appellate court held that the accused were guilty of the offences charged because: a. The prosecution had proved that the accused had caused the death of the deceased by firing gunshots. b. The accused had acted with common intention to kill the deceased and his family members.
Final Decision: The appellate court set aside the trial court's judgment and order and convicted the accused of murder under Section 302 read with 149 IPC. The court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000/- on each accused, with a default sentence of two years' further rigorous imprisonment.
JUDGMENT :
SUNEET KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Vikas Goswami, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the accused respondents.
2. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 05.09.1985, passed by the Ist Additional District and Session Judge, Varanasi, in Session Trial No. 244 of 1984, under sections 302/149, 307/149 I.P.C. whereby, the accused respondents have been acquitted.
3. The appeal has been filed against all the acquitted accused. During pendency of the appeal the second respondent-Yadurai S/o Sri Alakh Narain and third respondent- Harishankar S/o Sri Brajnath Singh, have died. Accordingly, the appeal against them stands abated. First respondent-accused Ram Naresh, fourth respondent-Devendra and fifth respondent-Virendra are opposing the appeal and the present appeal is confined to the said accused.
Prosecution case:
4. As per prosecution case, accused Yadurai was assigned the role of firing and accused-Harishankar of causing injury by lathi. First, fourth and fifth respondent have been assigned assault weapon gadasa and farsa. Fourth and fifth respondents are brothers and sons of first respondent.
5. As per F.I.R. complainant Udaynath Singh (PW-1) alleged that about 20-25 days prior to the incident there was quarrel between the accused and Baba @ Digvijay Nath Dubey. Attempts were made to arrive at a compromise between the quarrelling parties, but failed. On 08.04.1984, at about 9 P.M. a community panchayat was convened at the door of the complainant to settle the matter between the parties, both the parties were invited to the panchayat. It is stated that Baba @ Digvijay Nath Dubey (PW-3), his sister Pramila Devi, his aunt Indrawati Devi, his younger brother Narendra Nath Dubey and Dhirendra Nath Dubey had come to attend the panchayat. The complainant’s father Kedar Singh (deceased) and his younger brother Mahendra (PW-2), Surendra, Rajendra and the wives of Rajendra and Surendra were also present. Panchayat was convened by father of the complainant on the consent of both the parties.
6. It was further stated that there was electric light burning at the door of the complainant and a mercury light at the crossing of the road. It was moonlit night. A person was sent to call the accused persons. He returned informing that they will come shortly. It is alleged that in the mean time accused Yaduri armed with gun, accused Harishankar with lathi, accused Ram Naresh, Devendra and Dhirendra armed with gadasa came on the spot. Accused started hurling abuses and exhorted that family of Kedar Singh (deceased) wants to suppress and humiliate them in collusion with the family of Baba and at that moment accused Yadurai fired five shots from his gun injuring Kedar, Smt. Nirmala Devi, Mahendra, Smt. Pramila and Smt. Indrawati. Mahendra is said to have also received single blow of lathi afflicted by accused Harishankar. Ram Naresh Singh, Virendra and Devendra wielded gadasa, but, no one was injured. An alarm was raised, patrol police reached, accused escaped. The complainant send his injured father, Nirmala Devi, Pramila, Indrawati alongwith his younger brother Rajendra to district Hospital at Varanasi; father of the complainant (Kedar Singh) succumbed to the injuries in the hospital on the same night.
7. On written complaint, F.I.R. was promptly registered, the case was investigated and upon investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused under sections 302/149, 307/149 I.P.C. The case was committed to the court of session for trial. The prosecution examined in all eight witnesses. (PW-1) complainant Uday Nath Singh, eye witness and he proved the report; (PW-2) Mahendra Singh brother of the complaint is an injured eye witness; (PW-3) Digvijay @ Baba is also the eye witness; (PW-4) Nirmala a family member of complainant, is an injured eye witness; (PW-5) constable Achhaiber Nath Yadav took the dead body to the mortuary for post mortem; (PW-6) Dr. T.B. Rai examined the inj
The appellate court can set aside a trial court's finding of acquittal if it finds that the finding is perverse and against the weight of evidence.
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....
Failure to properly examine delay in lodging FIR can be fatal to prosecution.
The need for caution in convicting accused based on the testimonies of injured eyewitnesses, especially in cases of free fights where injuries on the accused are not properly explained.
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
