IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Om Prakash-VII, Narendra Kumar Johari, JJ.
State of U.P. - Appellant
Versus
Sahab Singh and others – Respondents
Government Appeal No. 2580 of 1985
Decided On : 19-07-2022
Indian Penal Code , 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32 (1), 114 - Murder Offence – Constituted unlawful assembly - Appeal against acquittal - Accused persons who were hidden in sugar cane harvest of field, came out from filed caught Satyapal Singh and started assaulting him – Held, Accused persons had constituted unlawful assembly and attacked on Satya Pal with their common intention as well as knowledge about severity of injuries - Evidence of prosecution witness, so far as role of accused persons is concerned, have no contradiction or discrepancy - Conclusion/findings recorded by learned trial Court in impugned judgment and order are perverse and same are not sustainable in eye of law – Court is of considered view that prosecution has succeeded to prove guilt of accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt and to satisfaction of judicial conscience of Court - So, impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by trial Court, which has been sought to be assailed, call for and deserves interference - Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Narendra Kumar Johari, J.
The present Government appeal has been filed by the State seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.6.1985, passed by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in S.T. No. 577/1983 (State v. Sahab Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 4 of 1983, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 302 IPC, Police Station Chhaprauli, District Meerut. By the impugned judgment and order, learned trial Court acquitted the accused-respondents Sahab Singh, Charan Singh, Dharamvir, Dhara Singh and Shri Pal for the offence punishable under Sections 323/149, 302/149, 147 IPC.
2. In brief, the case of the prosecution was that the informant Mahak Singh lodged an F.I.R. in Police Station Chhaprauli, District Meerut on 12.1.1983 at 18.10 hours stating that informant alongwith his brother Satyapal Singh was returning from his sugar cane field on 12.1.1983 at about 3.00 p.m. On the way, as he reached near the sugarcane field of Zilley Singh, the accused persons Sahab Singh, Charan Singh, Dharamvir, Dhara Singh and Shri Pal, who were hidden in the sugar cane harvest of Zilley Singh's field, came out from the filed caught Satyapal Singh and started assaulting him. All the accused persons had beaten him badly using the weapons Lathies and Kharpali (a sharp edged weapon). Informant, who was also returning from his field and following Satyapal Singh from some distance, seeing the occurrence, ran towards them by raising alarm to rescue his brother. Looking his activities accused Saheb Singh attacked on him with Danda. Having heard the voice of informant, Ranvir, Chandan and Baljeet, who were present in their fields, moved towards the place of occurrence to save them. As the witnesses reached on the spot, accused persons made their escape good. The accused persons had attacked on his brother, due to old enmity.
3. Injured/victim Satyapal was brought from the place of occurrence to his house by bullock cart and thereafter to Police Station by bus. The police registered F.I.R. on the basis of above written Tehreer, scribe by Krishna Pal Singh. The Investigating Officer, considering the serious condition of injured, recorded the statement of Satya Pal Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. at Police Station. Thereafter, the injured Satyapal Singh was sent to Chaprauli Hospital for treatment. Since the doctor was not available there, hence the injured moved to Primary Health Center, Baraut from Chaprauli, but on the way, injured Satyapal Singh succumbed to his injuries. Injured Mahak Singh got medically examined at Primary Health Center, Baraut at about 10.10 p.m.
4. Pursuant to the F.I.R., investigation of the case was entrusted to Station Officer Rajendra Singh, who prepared the Inquest report, send the dead body of Satyapal Singh for Post-mortem, inspected the spot, sketched the site map and recorded statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer also collected the blood stained and plain soil from the place of occurrence. On the pointing out of the accused Sahab Singh, the Investigating Officer recovered three blood stained Lathies from the Gher of his residential house, prepared the Fard and submitted the police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the Court concerned against all the accused persons.
5. Learned trial Court framed the charges under Section 323 read with 149, 302 read 149 and 147 IPC against accused persons, who denied and abjured the charges, pleaded not guilty and preferred the trial.
6. On behalf of the prosecution Mahak Singh as PW 1, Chandan Singh as PW 2, Pheru as PW 3, Baljit as PW 4, Kalu Ram S/o Hardan Singh as PW 5, Dr. T. Raj Sharma as PW 6, Dr. V.P. Gupta as PW 7, Constable Sohanpal Singh as PW 8, Constable Budh Prakash as PW 9, R.S. Kaushik as PW 10 and constable Sukhpal Singh as PW 11 have recorded their evidence.
7. PW 1, Informant Mahak Singh, has corroborated the F.I.R. version in his evidence and submitted that he was the eye-wit
Abdul Mohammad v. Attorney-General of Palestine
Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and others
Ashabai and another v. State of Maharashtra
Bakhsis Singh v. State of Punjab
Behari Prasad and others v. State of Bihar
Bhagalool Lodh and another v. State of U.P.
Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal
Brahma Swarup and others v. State of U.P.
Chirra Shivraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Dahari and others v. State of U.P.
Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab
Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal
Dhanaj Singh v. State of Punjab
Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab
Ganga Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and others
Ganpat Mahadeo Mani v. State of Maharashtra
Gulzari Lal v. State of Haryana
Kamaljit Singh v. State of Punjab
Lakhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra
Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey
Mafabhai Nagarbhai Raval v. State of Gujrat
Majju and another v. State of M.P.
Marwadi Kishor Parmanand and another v. State of Gujarat
Meharaban and others v. State of M.P.
Munigadappa Meenaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Narendra Nath Khaware v. Parasnath Khaware
Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor
Paras Yadav and others v. State of Bihar
Prithvi (Minor) v. Mam Raj and others
Raju @ Balachandran and others v. State of Tamil Nadu
Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar and others
Ram Gulam Chaudhury and others v. State of Bihar
Ramawati Devi v. State of Bihar
Rambai v. State of Chhatisgarh
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh and others
State of Rajasthan v. Bhup Singh
State of Rajasthan v. Champa Lal
State of U.P. v. Jagdeo and others
State of U.P. v. Krishna Master and others
Subedar Tewari v. State of U.P. and others
Subodh Nath and another v. State of Tripura
Sudhakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar
Surinder Kumar v. State of Haryana
Surjit Singh Alias Gurmit Singh v. State of Punjab
Though test identification parade is not a substantive piece of evidence, at times, it adds strength to case of prosecution by giving more credibility to statements of eye witnesses which is grossly ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of witnesses, even if related to the deceased, should not be automatically discarded, and minor discrepancies in the evidence sh....
The court reaffirms that police conduct during official duties must not infringe on rights, prioritizing eyewitness testimony in establishing guilt over medical evidence, thus validating convictions ....
The appellate court emphasized that eyewitness accounts must be given due weight, and mere flaws in investigation do not automatically discount credible testimonies in murder trials.
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....
(1) Doctrine of judicial notice is an exception to general rules of evidence applicable for proving any fact by adducing evidence in Court of law – Except in rarest of rare cases, judicial notice of ....
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.