Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAI TYAGI, J.
Rajnesh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.3411 of 2018, 2819 of 2019
Decided on : 10-11-2022
Motive, Presence of Eye-Witnesses, and False Implication - Criminal Appeal - Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323/149 IPC - [Motive, Presence of Eye-Witnesses, and False Implication] - [Sections 147, 148, 302, 323, 506 IPC]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between two families, leading to a brutal murder. The trial court convicted two appellants under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 323 r/w Section 34 IPC, while acquitting all other accused persons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the presence of the eye-witnesses was doubtful, and their testimonies were not reliable. It concluded that there was a strong suspicion and high probability of false implication of the accused appellants due to enmity between the families. The trial court was criticized for misreading the evidence and convicting the appellants based on unreliable testimonies.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the motive, presence of eye-witnesses, and the reliability of the prosecution's case. The court scrutinized the testimonies of the witnesses and the medical evidence to determine the truthfulness of the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mere consistency in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses is not the sole test of truth. It highlighted the need to assess whether the prosecution evidence, coupled with surrounding circumstances, has a ring of truth or raises a strong suspicion of false implication.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the conviction and sentence of the appellants were overturned. The appellants were acquitted of the charges, and the court ordered their release from jail.
JUDGMENT :
1. These two criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the judgement and order dated 30.05.2018, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Badaun in S.T. No.519 of 2013 (State Vs. Rajnesh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.334 of 2012, under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 323/149 IPC, Police Station-Rajpura, District-Sambhal, whereby learned trial court convicted accused appellants Rajnesh and Vijay Pal under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and sentenced each with life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-and six months simple imprisonment in case of default of fine. Trial court also convicted them under Section 323 r/w Section 34 IPC and sentenced each six months R.I. and fine of Rs.500/-and 15 days simple imprisonment in case of default of fine. Learned trial court acquitted all the other accused persons from all the charges framed against them and also acquitted accused appellant Vijay Pal of the charge under Section 25 of Arms Act. Both these appeals, being connected, are being decided together.
2. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the record are that a written report Ext. Ka.5 is submitted by informant Anek Pal at police station-Rajpura, District-Bhimnagar (Sambhal) with the averments that the in-laws’ house of his brother Gauri Shankar is in Jethpura in the family of Ram Bhoop and the in-laws’ house of accused Vijay Pal is also in the same village in the family of Kalyan. There is dispute going on between the families of in-laws of Gauri Shankar and Vijay Pal. His brother had gone to his in-laws’ house for diffusing the dispute. Accused Vijay Pal and his in-laws took it as their insult and started silent enmity with them. Further averment is that that on 12.07.2012 at about 5:00 pm, the Rajnesh brother-in-law of accused Vijay Pal, Vijay Pal, Hari Shankar, Sher Pal, Raj Pal, Ram Khiladi and Mahesh, armed with weapons, came to the house of his brother Gauri Shankar and called him. His nephew Rama Shankar @ Pappu came out of the house. All the aforesaid accused persons got him and started beating with lathiand danda. On his hue and cry, his brother Gauri Shankar came out of the house then all the accused got Gauri Shankar and said to kill him. Then Rajnesh caught hold Gauri Shankar and Vijay Pal triggered a fire in the head of Gauri Shankar, who fell on the ground and died. Accused persons after seeing them fled away from the spot stating that if anybody gave the evidence he will be killed.
3. On the basis of aforesaid written report, a first information report Ext.Ka.3 was registered at Police Station-Rajpura, District-Bhimnagar as Case Crime No.334 of 2012 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 and 506 IPC. Station Officer Lakshmi Shankar took up the investigation. Statements of witnesses were recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. I.O. went to the spot and prepared site-plan. Blood stained and plain earth were collected from the spot and recovery memo was prepared. Injured Rama Shankar was taken to the hospital where his medical examination was conducted and medico legal report was prepared. Inquest proceedings of the deceased were conducted and inquest report was prepared. Post mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased and doctor prepared post mortem report. During the course of investigation, the I.O. arrested the accused Vijay Pal, on whose pointing out a country made pistol (Tamancha) was recovered from his house, in which one empty cartridge was found in the barrel and one live cartridge was also recovered. Tamancha with empty cartridge were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and report was received stating the fact that the empty cartridge was fired by the aforesaid Tamancha.
4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted by I.O. against accused Rajnesh, Vijay Pal, Hari Shankar, Raj Pal, Ram Khiladi and Mahesh under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 3
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of scrutinizing the reliability of witness testimonies and assessing the truthfulness of prosecution evidence, especially in cases w....
The court upheld the conviction for murder but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing the need for extreme caution in imposing capital punishment.
When evidence of eye-witnesses are not trust worthy to believe, then motive place an important role to prove guilt of accused.
The recovery of the weapon used is not a sine qua non to convict the accused when there is direct evidence in the form of eye witnesses.
The judgment establishes that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when relying on eyewitness testimony, which must be consistent and credible to support a conv....
Conviction upheld - Reliability of witness testimony - It is settled that merely because witnesses are close relatives of victim, their testimonies cannot be discarded. Relationship with one of parti....
Reliable eye-witness testimony of natural witnesses, consistent with medical evidence and prompt FIR, sustains murder conviction under 302/34 IPC despite alleged enmity.
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
