Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, OM PRAKASH TRIPATHI, JJ.
Lakhan @ Lakhan @ Akash And Others – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.635 of 2009
Decided on : 05-12-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 394, 302, 307, 412, 323 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 161 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 9 – Offence of murder – Criminal Appeal – Case of default – Causing injury – Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery – Attempt to murder – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt – Examination of witnesses by police – present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court, in Sessions Trial arising out of Case Crime under Sections 394, 302, 307, 412 IPC, Police Station, District, whereby three appellants namely have been convicted for offence under Sections 394 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment for offence under Section 394 IPC along with fine, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC appellants have been sentenced with life imprisonment and fine – Held, Court find that prosecution has established each and every circumstance of case leading towards guilt of accused persons – There is no doubt about their identification and connection with crime – Prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt – No interference can, thus, be made in judgment of conviction – Sentence awarded to accused persons cannot be said to be disproportionate to offence for which they have been convicted – No interference, as such, is required in judgment of trial court – Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Here are the key legal points derived from the provided document:
The prosecution successfully proved the identity of the accused persons and established their connection to the crime beyond reasonable doubt, based on eyewitness identification and recoveries made at their instance (!) (!) .
The identification of the accused in court, supported by prior identification parade proceedings conducted in the presence of a Magistrate, was deemed credible and properly conducted, with safeguards to ensure the reliability of the identification process (!) (!) (!) .
The delay in conducting the test identification parade was considered, but the court found that the procedures were properly followed and the evidence of identification remains admissible and probative (!) (!) .
The recoveries of looted articles, including a motorcycle, jewelry, and a mobile phone, were held to be made in accordance with legal formalities, with proper documentation and in the presence of witnesses, establishing a link between the accused and the crime (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence of the injured witnesses regarding the sequence of events, injuries sustained, and the identification of the accused was considered credible, especially since their injuries were proved and they were examined promptly after the incident (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the identification parade and recoveries are valuable corroborative evidence, but the primary evidence remains the eyewitness testimony and the physical evidence collected during investigation (!) (!) .
The court found that the evidence collectively established the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, justifying their conviction for the offenses charged, including murder, robbery, and causing injuries (!) (!) .
The sentences awarded, including life imprisonment, were deemed proportionate to the offenses committed, and no grounds for interference were found in the trial court’s judgment (!) (!) .
The appeal was dismissed on the merits, affirming the conviction and sentence, with directions for the accused to serve their remaining sentences, and for the lower court to implement the judgment and notify all concerned accordingly (!) (!) .
The legal procedures regarding identification and recoveries were upheld as proper, and the safeguards for ensuring the reliability of witness identification were considered adequately observed in this case (!) (!) (!) .
These points reflect the court's reasoning regarding the credibility of evidence, procedural correctness, and the proportionality of sentences, based on the facts and evidence presented in the case.
JUDGMENT :
Sunita Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Srivastava learned Amicus for appellant nos. 2 and 3 and Ms. Manju Pandey for appellant no. 1 and Sri Roopak Chaubey learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.
Introduction:-
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.1.2009 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No. 397 of 2006 arising out of Case Crime No. 292 of 2005 under Sections 394, 302, 307, 412 IPC, Police Station Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahr, whereby three appellants namely Lakhan @ Lakhan @ Akash, Rakesh and Satish @ Ajay have been convicted for the offence under Sections 394 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment for the offence under Section 394 IPC along with fine of Rs. 1 Lakh each, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC the appellants have been sentenced with life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1 Lakh each. The appellants have also been convicted for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced for one year imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-each. It is provided that in case of default, the fine shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue and no arrangement for additional imprisonment was being made in the case of default. The fine was required to be disbursed to the family of the victims and the victims as well. All the punishments are to run concurrently.
The first information report and the investigation:-
3. The first information report of the incident was lodged by Prem Jeet Singh, examined as PW-3 that on 24.10.2005, he along with his wife Mamta @ Bittan and his uncle Mahipal Singh was coming back from the house of his brother-in-law Kalyan Singh from village Bavanpur to his own village. At about 7:30 PM, at Rjapur Bambe ki Puliya ahead of village Chandauk, four miscreants had intercepted his motor cycle on the strength of hockey, country made pistol, rifle and iron rod. One miscreant had attacked the informant with the rifle butt and another on his head and he became unconscious and fell on the ground. The miscreants had looted Rs. 880/- from the pocket of the informant and Rs. 300/- from the purse of his wife and also the earrings, gold chain, silver ornaments of his wife and ran away towards Sikarpur by looting motorcycle of the informant. On getting consciousness, the informant saw a scooter lying on the spot and two persons in injured state were lying there. It is stated in the written report that the informant had identified the miscreants in the light of the motorcycle and he could identify them. On the written report given by the informant, Check FIR was prepared and the report was registered at 8:15 PM on 24.10.2005 itself. The place of the incident indicated in the Check FIR is the Jungle of village Chandauk, 5 kms. South of the police station.
4. The fact of lodging of the first information report was proved with the statement of PW-11, Check writer who was posted in the police station Jahangirabad on 24.10.2005. He stated that he had prepared the Check report on the written report given by the informant Prem Jeet Singh and the Check report had been proved as Exhibit Ka-‘13’, being in his handwriting and signature. The GD entry at Rapat No. 28, Time 20:15 hours of the FIR made on 24.10.2005 was proved by bringing the original GD in the Court, exhibited as Exhibit Ka-‘14’.
Out of two injured lying on the spot of the incident, one injured Sunil Sharma had been examined as PW-2 whereas another injured Dinesh Sharma had died on 24.10.2005 in the hospital. It is proved by PW-1 that on receipt of information of death of injured Dinesh, G.D. entry at Rapat No. 29, Time 22:30 hours of the offence under Section 302 IPC was made, which was proved as Exhibit Ka-‘15’ by bringing the original GD in the Court.
5. In cross, PW-11 stated that when the informant came to the police station, he was conscious and his wife and one Mohan Lal were accompanying him. The suggest
Point of Law : Test identification report do not constitute substantive evidence and its corroboration from the surrounding circumstance is required.
The prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and procedural irregularities in identification parades.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable eyewitness identification, the admissibility of recovery evidence, and the obligation to disclose crucial reports in ....
The reliability of eye-witness testimonies and the test identification parade in establishing the guilt of the accused.
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
