Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Manoj Misra, Sameer Jain, JJ.
Ram Charan Singh and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 2493 of 1983
Decided On : 26-08-2022
None
Fact of the Case:
On 10.09.1982, at about 6 am, Dharamveer (PW-1) heard screams of his nephew Chiranji (the deceased) coming from the field of Ajab Singh, which had standing maize crop. Reacting to the screams, PW-1, Kundan (PW-2) and Chiranji’s mother (not examined) reached the spot. There, they witnessed Ram Charan (appellant no.1) and Rajpal (appellant no.2) pinning down Chiranji and putting pressure on him after having tied a knot around his neck by using his trouser. When the informant and others came to rescue him, Rajpal threatened them by saying that if anybody comes forward, he would be shot dead, as a result whereof, the informant party stayed away. Both the accused, thereafter, dragged the deceased into the Jwar (millet) field by pulling him with the aid of that trouser tied around Chiranji’s neck. On raising alarm, when several persons arrived and tracking the drag marks they reached the neighbouring sugar cane field of Udayeer, they found Chiranji dead with 3 to 4 knots of that trouser tied on his neck.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had established a cogent motive for the crime, that the ocular account was trustworthy and reliable, and that the medical evidence corroborated the ocular account. The court also found that there was no material contradiction in the testimony of the two witnesses as regards the collection of the trouser from the spot. The court further found that the injuries inflicted on the deceased were such that it cannot be an accidental strangulation and reflected an intention to cause death.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established a cogent motive for the crime? 2. Whether the ocular account was trustworthy and reliable? 3. Whether the medical evidence corroborated the ocular account? 4. Whether there was any material contradiction in the testimony of the two witnesses as regards the collection of the trouser from the spot? 5. Whether the injuries inflicted on the deceased were such that it cannot be an accidental strangulation and reflected an intention to cause death?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had established a cogent motive for the crime based on the testimony of PW-2 that the deceased Chiranji had teased the accused appellants’ sister Dharmo and that the accused appellants had beaten both their sister as well as Chiranji. 2. The court held that the ocular account was trustworthy and reliable based on the following factors: a. The witnesses were present at the spot at the time of the incident. b. The witnesses had a clear view of the incident. c. The witnesses were not biased against the accused appellants. d. The witnesses’ testimony was corroborated by the medical evidence. 3. The court held that the medical evidence corroborated the ocular account based on the following factors: a. The autopsy report showed that the deceased had died due to asphyxia as a result of injury to the neck. b. The injury to the neck was consistent with the witnesses’ testimony that the accused appellants had strangled the deceased with his own trouser. 4. The court held that there was no material contradiction in the testimony of the two witnesses as regards the collection of the trouser from the spot based on the fact that the witnesses may have noticed different things due to being in a state of shock. 5. The court held that the injuries inflicted on the deceased were such that it cannot be an accidental strangulation and reflected an intention to cause death based on the following factors: a. The autopsy report showed that the deceased had sustained multiple injuries to the neck, including a fractured hyoid bone, fractured tracheal cartilages, and a ruptured carotid sheath. b. The injuries were consistent with the witnesses’ testimony that the accused appellants had strangled the deceased with his own trouser.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellants for the charge of murder with the aid of section 34 IPC.
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Misra, J.
1. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated October 19, 1983 passed by third Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in S.T. No.780 of 1982 convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC to imprisonment for life.
INTRODUCTORY FACTS
2. The prosecution story, in a nutshell, as per the written report (Ex. Ka-1), lodged by Dharamveer (PW-1), is that in the morning of 10.09.1982, at about 6 am, while the informant was easing himself in the open field, he heard screams of his nephew Chiranji (the deceased) coming from the field of Ajab Singh, which had standing maize crop. Reacting to the screams, the informant, Kundan (PW-2) and Chiranji’s mother (not examined) reached the spot. There, they witnessed Ram Charan (appellant no.1) and Rajpal (appellant no.2) pinning down Chiranji and putting pressure on him after having tied a knot around his neck by using his trouser. When the informant and others came to rescue him, Rajpal threatened them by saying that if anybody comes forward, he would be shot dead, as a result whereof, the informant party stayed away. Both the accused, thereafter, dragged the deceased into the Jwar (millet) field by pulling him with the aid of that trouser tied around Chiranji’s neck. On raising alarm, when several persons arrived and tracking the drag marks they reached the neighbouring sugar cane field of Udayeer, they found Chiranji dead with 3 to 4 knots of that trouser tied on his neck. It was alleged that body of Chiranji was lifted from the spot and brought to his house where after, they have come to lodge the report. With regard to the motive for the crime, it was disclosed that about 8-9 months ago, the deceased was caught with the sister of the accused; the accused had then beaten Chiranji as well as their sister. Since then the accused were inimical towards Chiranji. The written report, which was scribed by Jodha Singh (not examined), was lodged at 9.20 am on 10.09.1982 at P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr, which is at a distance of 14 km from the spot, giving rise to case crime no.299 of 1982. The G.D. Entry in respect of lodgement of the written report was made vide report no.18 (Ex. Ka-10) by PW-5 who also prepared Chik Report (Ex. Ka-9).
3. Inquest was conducted by PW-4 while the body of the deceased was lying on a cot at the Baithak of the house of the deceased at village Shahpur. The inquest report (Ex. Ka-3) recites, inter alia, (a) that information was received from Dharamveer (PW-1) at 9.20 hours on 10.09.1982; (b) that the police left the police station to go to the spot at 11.45 hours on 10.09.1982; (c) that the distance of the spot from the police station was 16 km; (d) that the body of the deceased was carrying an open shirt and an underwear; and (e) that next to the body was a nylon trouser of the deceased, which was seized by the police. The inquest report was witnessed by Harish Chandra (village Pradhan), Charan Singh, Kundan Singh, Ajab Singh and Prahlad Singh. None of them has been examined. It be mentioned that in the second page of the inquest report there is recital of the case details i.e. Case Crime No.299 under Section 302 IPC. The inquest report also notices that PW-4 conducted the inquest under the direction of Inspector Sri Harinandan Singh.
4. The autopsy of the cadaver was conducted by Chandra Prakash (PW-3) on 11.09.1982 at about 3 pm. According to the autopsy report, the deceased was aged about 19 years. The autopsy report (Ex. Ka-2) records:-
Thin built body. Rigor mortis passing off. No sign of decomposition seen. Bleeding from both nostrils present. Tongue congested. Lips swollen.
Ante-mortem injuries:
(i) Abraded contusion 7” x 1” on anterior aspect of neck horizontally placed across wind pipe extending from below left angle of mandible to right neck.
(ii) Abraded contusion 10” x 7” on anterior lower chest and upper abdomen both sides, 2” above umbilicus.
(iii) Abraded contu
Credibility of Witness - As to when an improvement would affect the credibility of a witness, much would depend on the facts of a case apart from the nature of the improvement made Reserved
Point of law: If direct evidence is satisfactory and reliable, the same cannot be rejected on hypothetical medical evidence
The court found the testimony of the eyewitnesses to be trustworthy and reliable, disregarding minor contradictions and inconsistencies in their statements.
Offence of Murder - Conviction set aside - No one actually witnessed incident and FIR was lodged on basis of guess-work and suspicion and appellants have been implicated on account of suspicion becau....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for circumstantial evidence to be cogently and firmly established, forming a complete chain that rules out any reasonable likelihoo....
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
