IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Siddhartha Varma, Umesh Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Pawan Mishra - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Jail Appeal No. 3367 of 2010, Criminal Appeal No. 3490 of 2010
Decided On : 26-09-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 364A, 302, 201 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 293, 313, 174, 162 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3, 6, 32, 106 – Criminal Appeal – Default of payment – Offence of murder – Charges were framed – Kidnapping for ransom – Causing disappearance of evidence of offence – Power to examine the accused – Police to enquire and report on suicide – Instant appeal has been preferred against judgement and order passed by Special Judge (D.A.A), Agra in S.T, arising out of Case Crime, under Section 364A, 302/201 I.P.C, Police Station New Agra, District Agra whereby accused-appellants have been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life – They were to pay each as fine – It was further provided that on default of payment of fine appellants were to further undergo two years of additional simple imprisonment – Held, There they were administered sleeping pills, and thereafter their hyoid bones were broken by strangulation and were buried under earth – They were thereafter buried alive and in an unconscious state of mind – Accused persons while committing such acts were always knowing that their acts were so imminently dangerous that they would in all probability, cause death – Thus act of convicted accused persons is covered under Section 300 (4) IPC. By burying deceased persons and by burning their clothes and shoes accused persons had also committed offence under section 201 IPC – Thus this court is of considered view that charges against all accused appellants have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and they were correctly convicted by learned trial court – So far as sentencing is concerned lower court had opined that it is not a rarest of rare cases and therefore awarded them minimum sentence – State or informant have not preferred any appeal against order of sentencing – Under Sections 302 and 364A IPC minimum sentence is life imprisonment and fine which has already been awarded by trial court – Trial court has already awarded rigorous imprisonment and fine each under Section 201 IPC – Thus sentence awarded by trial court is neither excessive nor harsh – Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vindeshwari Prasad and the learned A.G.A for the State in Jail Appeal No. 3367 of 2010 and Sri Phoolbadan Yadav along with Sri Vishnu Shanker Gupta (Amicus Curiae) for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State in Criminal Appeal No. 3490 of 2010 and perused the material available on record.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 13.04.2010 passed by Special Judge (D.A.A), Agra in S.T No. 121 of 2005 (State Vs. Pawan Mishra & Ors), arising out of Case Crime No. 356 of 2005, under Section 364A, 302/201 I.P.C, Police Station New Agra, District Agra whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. They were to pay Rs. 10,000/- each as fine. It was further provided that on default of payment of fine the appellants were to further undergo two years of additional simple imprisonment.
3. The court further convicted the appellants under section 364A I.P.C. and sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and imposed fine of Rs. 5000/-on each of the appellants. Here again it was provided that in default of payment of fine the appellants would undergo one year additional simple imprisonment.
4. The trial court has further convicted the appellants under section 201 I.P.C. sentencing the appellants to undergo 5 years of rigorous imprisonment and also imposed fine of Rs. 5,000/-and further provided that in default of payment of fine the appellants would undergo one years additional simple imprisonment. All the sentences were to run concurrently.
5. Brief facts of the case are that informant Banwari Lal Sharma, s/o Rameshwar Lal Sharma resident of Gali Devghar P.S.-Devghar, District-Devghar, Jharkhand lodged an F.I.R. (Exhibit-Ka-15) on 27.06.2005 with the allegation that his nephew Pawan Mishra, s/o Vashudev Mishra, resident of Mausoli Bazar, Raniganj, P.S.-Raniganj, District-Bardhaman, West Bengal presently residing in the house of Natholi Ram Godala, Bizapur Road, District-Agra left Raniganj and came to Agra after killing his cousin there. It was stated in the F.I.R. that occasionally he used to come to the house of the first informant and also used to talk to the informant by his mobile no. 09219799101. In this conversation he also promised to provide job to the informant’s nephew Amar @ Jivan Sharma, s/o Puranmal Sharma. Owing to this promise of Pawan Mishra on 11.06.2005, the informant’s nephew Amar Sharma and a friend of his Victor @ Potan, s/o Vishnu Dev Varnwal, resident of Kanutola, District-Devghar, Jharkhand reached Agra and on 12.06.2006, Amar @ Jivan informed the first informant that he along with his friend had reached Agra and also informed the first informant about their meeting with Pawan Mishra. After 2-3 days had passed, Jeevan rang up the first informant and told him that there was no arrangement of any job. In response the first informant told him to come back. On 15.06.2005, Pawan Mishra informed the appellant that he was sending both the boys back via Purva Express. When on 16.06.2005, the boys did not reach home at the given time then the first informant tried to talk to Pawan Mishra to inform him that the boys had not reached home. Pawan threatened the first informant that they would reach only when he would send them and informed that he had abducted both of them. On 17.06.2005, Pawan again informed via telephone that the boys will be released only after the ransom money was paid. On 18.06.2005, the first informant informed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Devghar regarding the incident who in his turn wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Agra, U.P. In the evening of 18.06.2005, Pawan Mishra demanded Rs. 7,00,000/-ransom via telephone and threatened that he would cut
Bable @ Gurdeep Singh vs State Of Chattisgarh
Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Radha Mohan Singh alias lal Saheb Vs. State of U.P.
Bhim Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Mahavir Singh Vs. State of Haryana
G. Parshwanath vs State of Karnataka
Brahm Swaroop Vs. State of U.P.
Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Pakla Narayan Swami Vs. Emperor
Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra
Ashok Vs. State of Maharashtra
Prithipal Singh Vs. State of Punjab
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be reliable and corroborated; mere reliance on the last seen theory is insufficient for conviction.
Interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable and should be scrutinized with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being partisan. Minor discrepancies and contradictions should not ....
The court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a clear motive and reliable witness testimonies linking the appellant to the murder.
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.