IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAMESH SINHA, MOHD. ASLAM, JJ.
Ram Shankar and Others - Appellants
Versus
The State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 500 of 1984
Decided On : 22-12-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374 (2), 207, 313, 161 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 449, 302, 323 - Murder Offence – Appeal against Conviction - Accused persons fled towards north while firing - They identified accused persons clearly and by their names also - His brother's dead body was lying at home and injured were also at home - He prayed that his first information report be lodged and legal action be taken against accused persons – Held, Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused-appellants for offence punishable - Learned lower court has rightly convicted and sentenced appellants for offences as mentioned above, according to law, which requires no interference - Ocular testimony of eyewitnesses is corroborated by injury report by post-mortem report of deceased and is also corroborated by version of FIR, therefore, detailed appreciation of evidence proves that appellants (who died during pendency of appeal) along with prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly they had committed murder of deceased Lalji and had caused injuries - Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Mohd. Aslam, J.
1. Heard Ms. Prachi Trivedi, learned counsel for applicant No.3, Sri Dharm Trivedi, learned counsel for appellant No.4 as well as Sri Umesh Chandra Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for State of U.P. and perused the record.
2. This criminal appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellants (1) Ram Shankar, (2) Gokaran Shukla, (3) Jageshwar, (4) Sabit, and (5) Mukaddar under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.06.1984 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Lakhimpur Kheri in Sessions Trial No. 168 of 1984 (State of U.P. Vs. Ram Shanker and 4 others), arising out of Case Crime No. 146 of 1981, Police Station-Dhaurahra, District-Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the appellants were convicted for offence punishable under Section 302/149 Indian Penal Code (in short "I.P.C") and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, they were also convicted for offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, also convicted for offence punishable under Section 307/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and they were also convicted for offence punishable under Section 449 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years, further convicted for offence punishable under Section 323/149 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. It was further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. During the pendency of appeal, appellant no.(1) Ram Shankar, (2) Gokaran Shukla and (5) Mukaddar died and the appeal in respect of them was dismissed as abated vide order dated 29.09.2021, now the present appeal survives only against appellant no. (3) Jageshwar and (4) Sabit.
4. In brief, the prosecution case is that informant Devi Charan Mishra (PW-1) son of Ram Swaroop Mishra, resident of village Shekhan Purwa, Police Station-Dhaurahra, District- Lakhimpur Kheri lodged the first information report on 06.07.1981 at 7.00 a.m. at Police Station- Dhaurahra alleging therein that he was living with his cousin Lalji Prasad son of Santram in the same house. His second marriage took place about 12 years ago with Vidya, daughter of Babu Ram Shukla, resident of village Murasa, Police Station- Mitauli. His wife Vidya was a lady of easy virtue on account of which his relation with her was not good and she parted company with him and was living at her paternal house. It is also alleged that due to this his father-in-law, brother-in-law Ram Shankar and others had suspicion that Lalji Prasad and his wife Smt. Ram Shree were behind all this trouble so that they made repeated unsuccessful attempt to persuade Devi Charan to separate himself from Lalji Prasad. One year before the incident, his wife had also exhorted that as long as Lalji and his wife would not die or be killed she would not come to her matrimonial home. His wife Vidya had developed illicit relation with accused Sabit and Mukaddar, who were living in the neighborhood, and on account of this unholy activity the aforesaid accused had exchange of words with Lalji Prasad. In the night of 5/6.07.1981 he and his cousin Lalji Prasad were sleeping in the courtyard after taking dinner and his sister-in-law (Bhauji) Ram Shree, niece Shravan Kumari and nephew Dinesh Kumar were sleeping on the terrace and his another brother Shrikant and his servant Arjun Lodh (PW-3) were sleeping in the western side of the same courtyard. A lantern (lamp) was burning in the courtyard (ANGAN). In the mid of night, informant woke up and sat down on CHAUKI and at around 12:30 hrs. in the night, 5-6 persons infiltrated from the north side of TATIHAR (thatched) gate flashing torches, thereupon, informant accosted them, then the miscreants commanded him to sit quietly. Then he saw in the flashes of torch that his brother-in-law Ram Shankar armed with gun, Shyam Bihari Shukla arme
Bakshish Ram and Another vs. State of Punjab
Sakatar Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana
Phula Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Girish Yadav & Ors. v. State of M.P.
Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab
Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras
Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan
Interested witnesses, such as close relatives of the deceased, can provide credible testimony and their evidence should be carefully scrutinized but not automatically discarded. In cases of direct ev....
The testimonies of related witnesses must be scrutinized carefully, especially when inconsistencies exist and the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
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 ....
Point of Law : While appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, may not prompt the court to reject the evide....
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.