IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ramesh Sinha, Renu Agarwal, JJ.
Yunus - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 2005
Decided On : 12-12-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 307, 302, 498 – Arms Act – Section 3, 25 – Offence of murder – Attempt of Murder – Appellant, Yunus was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court Sessions Trial Yunus, arising out of Case Crime – Held, Court considered view that in cases where Court is called upon to deal with evidence of the interested witnesses approach of Court while appreciating evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic – Court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting evidence given by interested witnesses but Court must not be suspicious of such evidence primary endeavour of Court must be to look for consistency – Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against convict appellant – Trial Court after examining entire prosecution evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced convict/appellant for offence in question – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Ramesh Sinha, J.)
1. The convict/appellant, Yunus was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No.1, District Hardoi in Sessions Trial No.189 of 2002: State vs. Yunus, arising out of Case Crime No.338 of 2001 for the offence under Sections 307, 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “I.P.C.”) and in Sessions Trial No.190 of 2002: State vs. Yunus arising out of Case Crime No.351 of 2001 for the offence under Section 3/25 Arms Act, which were registered at Police Station Shahbad, District Hardoi.
2. Vide judgment and order dated 01.02.2005 passed in Sessions Trial Nos. 189 of 2002 & 190 of 2002, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Hardoi convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C. and Section 25 Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo:-
“(a) Under Section 302 I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment for two years.
(b) Under Section 307 I.P.C. to undergo seven years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment for one year.
(c) Under Section 25 Arms Act to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months additional imprisonment.”
All the aforesaid sentences were directed to be run concurrently.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 01.02.2005, convict/appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this Court.
4. The facts relating to the case are as under:-
The informant, Smt. Gudiya alias Guddi (P.W.1) was sleeping along with her family members. Her son and husband were sleeping outside in the courtyard and the informant alongwith her daughter Km. Nagma were sleeping on one cot and another daughter Km. Gulshan was sleeping equally on the other cot. The bulb was burning in the house, therefore, there was light. The locks of the outer doors were closed from inside. Then on 30.10.2001 at around 4:30 a.m., suddenly voice of husband and sons’s of the informant was heard, then her eyes opened. When she got up and came to the door of the room, she saw that her brother-in-law’s son Yunus (convict/appellant) was assaulting her husband and son with Gandasa (a sharp edged weapon) and when the convict/accused saw the informant then he assaulted her with Gandasa. Then the informant fell there after being injured. Thereafter, she kept silent due to fear, then convict/appellant Yunus thinking her to be dead and also assaulted her daughter Gulshan and Nagama with Gandasa and said that everyone is dead. Thinking everyone was dead, he started leaving with a burrow and climbed the ladder. Then the informant cried out in fear, then people from outside came. After that convict/appellant Yunus armed with country-made pistol has fired at roof and fled away by jumping from his house. Then she opened her door. The dead body of her husband, son and daughter are lying on the spot. It was further stated in the F.I.R. that the appellant Yusuf and his family members wanted to take all the property from the informant and her family members, due to which, they have done this incident. She has brought her injured daughter Nagma to police station and submitted a report for registering F.I.R. against the accused/appellant.
5. The informant Smt. Gudiya alias Guddi (P.W.1) got the written report of the incident scribed by one Shambhu Nath Gupta, Moharir, who after scribing it read it over to her. She thereafter affixed her thumb impression on it. She then proceeded to the Police Station Shahabad and lodged it. The written report of the incident is proved as Ext. Ka-1.
6. The evidence of P.W.3- Jamuna Pandey shows that on 30.10.2001, he was posted as Constable at Police Station Sahabad, District Hardoi and on the said date, at 6:15 a.m., informant- Smt. Guddi (P.W.1) came and filed a written report, on the basis of which, he prepared the chik F.I.R. (Ext.
Mano Dutt and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar
Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P.
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab
Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra
Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan
Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P.
Balraje v. State of Maharashtra
Nathuni Yadav vs. State of Bihar
Namdeo Daulata Dhayagude vs. State of Maharashra
Puran Singh vs. State of Punjab
Mohd. Rojali v. State of Assam
Amit v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy
Ganapathi v. State of Tamil Nadu
SupremeToday
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....
The judgment emphasizes the principle of common intention in criminal law, highlighting the requirement of prior concert and pre-arranged plan for establishing common intention. It also underscores t....
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
The court reaffirmed that consistent eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient to establish guilt in murder cases under IPC Sections 147, 149, and 302.
Conviction under IPC 302/34 upheld on reliable sole eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence and witnesses, despite minor discrepancies and non-examination of investigating officer/docto....
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.