IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Anjani Kumar Mishra, Umesh Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Rishi Talwar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. -258 of 2018
Decided On : 01-03-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25, 27-A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161, 313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 118, 106, 32(1), 6 , 17, 22A, 34, 35, 39, 45A, 47-A, 59, 65-A, 65-B, 67-A, 73-A, 81-A, 85-A, 85-B, 85-C, 88, 88A, 90-A and 131 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13B - No cordial relation between wife and husband - Beating and ill-treatment - Shot and killed - After a few days of marriage, Rishi Talwar started beating informant's daughter - Rishi Talwar had shot and killed Shweta – Proof that accused was present in house where deceased was killed, that deceased had communicated torture, beating and ill-treatment soon before her death to her parents. [Para 106]
Finding of the Court: There was no cordial relation between wife and husband and accused wanted to get a decree of divorce, presence of accused admitted by him in his bail application, proof that accused was present in house where deceased was killed, that deceased had communicated torture, beating and ill-treatment soon before her death to her parents, extra judicial confession made by accused to his sisters and mother, recovery of weapon which has matched with empty cartridges found on spot, presence of accused and deceased together in house, failure of accused to prove plea of alibi are chains of circumstances which are intact and unbroken - Thus, evidence adduced in this case also meets criteria propounded in cases based on circumstantial evidence - Court is also of opinion that impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the ASJ/FTC, Court No.2 Jhansi is factually and legally correct and lawful and is not liable to be interfered.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the convicted accused Rishi Talwar against the conviction and sentencing order dated 11.10.2017 in ST No.238 of 2014 (State of UP Vs. Rishi Talwar), under Section 302 IPC, Crime No.211 of 2014 and ST No.239 of 2014 (State of UP Vs. Rishi Talwar), under Section 25/27-A Arms Act, Crime No.212 of 2014 by which the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50,000/-and in case of non-payment of fine to undergo three months’ additional imprisonment and also conviction and sentence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 for five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine to undergo one month’s additional imprisonment. It was also directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. In brief, facts of the case are that informant Manohar Lal Suri resident of Narula Navi Mumbai, father of the deceased, Shweta and father-in-law of the accused, lodged an FIR on 30.04.2014 stating that the marriage of his daughter Shweta was solemnized as per social rituals and customs on 27.11.2003 with the accused Rishi Talwar son of Deepak Talwar resident of Mission Compound Sarva Nagar, Jhansi. After a few days of the marriage, Rishi Talwar started beating the informant's daughter. His daughter used to convey to the informant about beating and abuses by the accused over the phone. After the marriage the accused neither allowed the informant's daughter to meet the informant nor was she allowed to go anywhere in her kinship. He used to threaten her for divorce and used to demand money and said that she should take divorce otherwise he would kill her.
3. On 28.04.2014 at about 08:00 O’clock his daughter informed him over the telephone that Rishi had beaten her that day and had been doing so for 3-4 days. Again at about 11-12 O'clock she made a call where she said that Rishi was still beating her and she said that papa take away her and her children from here otherwise Rishi would kill them. On this, he told his daughter that he would come in the morning.
4. On 29.04.2014 at around 04:45 a.m. the accused’s mother Smt. Asha Talwar made a missed call on the informant's mobile no.9821154419. When the informant called back, the phone was switched off. After that at around 11 O'clock, Smt. Charu Suri, daughter-in-law of the informant, also (who is accused's sister) called and informed that Rishi Talwar had shot and killed Shweta. The informant immediately informed Jhansi Police and his relative Kamal Raj at around 01:00 O'clock and requested that no action should be taken till he and his family reached Jhansi. He himself would take legal action after seeing the condition of his daughter. Accused's mother Smt. Asha and sister Charu Suri are also involved in the murder.
5. On the night of 30.04.2014 at about 01:00 a.m. the informant with his wife Smt. Shakti Suri, son-in-law Umesh Vishnu Shirke and daughter Monika Umesh Shirke reached the house of the daughter Shweta and saw that her dead body lying in the bathroom, whom Rishi Talwar had killed by a gun shot. The informant requested to take legal recourse.
6. On the basis of above tahrira case at Crime No.211 of 2014, under Sections 302, 120-B IPC was registered on 30.04.2014 at 02:00 p.m. at Police Station Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi against Rishi Talwar, Asha Talwar (mother of the accused) and Charu Suri (sister of the accused).
7. The Investigating Officer started investigation and copied tahrirand chik FIR and recorded statements of the writer, informant and other witnesses and went in search of the accused. On the pointing of informant’s wife he reached at the house of the accused where he was arrested at 07:30 a.m. while he was locking the gate of his house. Upon being asked he identified himself as Rishi Talwar. In personal search a pistol on which MADE IN USA No.405 with OMEY ARMY SUPPLY printed on its barrel, was recovered with two
Adalat Pandit Vs. State of Bihar
Arjun Panditrao Kholkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others
Ashok Vs. State of Maharashtra
Babulal Vs. State of MP (2003) 12 SCC 490
Balvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra (2016) 10 SCC 537
Bhim Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand (2015) 4 SCC 281
Binay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar
C. Magesh Vs. State of Karnataka
Charanpal Vs. State of UP (2006) 6 SCC 662
G. Parshwanath Vs. State of Karnataka
Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao and another Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
Govindaraju @ Govinda Vs. State through Srirampuram P.S. and another
Harbans Kaur and another Vs. State of Haryana
Harpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Joshinder Yadav Vs. State of Bihar
Laxman Vs. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710
Madan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Motilal and others Vs. State of UP
Mukesh Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi and others
Narain Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2004) 13 SCC 264
Narendra Kumar Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi
Nathiya Vs. State (2016) 10 SCC 298
Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and another (2012) 5 SCC 201
Pakla Narayan Swami Vs. Emperor AIR 1939 PC 47
Paramjeet Singh Vs. State of Uttrakhand
Pooja Pal Vs. Union of India (2016) 3 SCC 135
Prithipal Singh Vs. State of Punjab
R.M. Malkani Vs. State of Maharashtra
Ravinder Kumar and another Vs. State of Punjab
Rohtash Vs. State of Rajasthan
Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra
Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra
Shyama Ghos Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 2012 SC 3539
State (NCT) of Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (2005) SCC(Cri) 1715
State by Karnataka Lokayukt P.S. Bengaluru Vs. M.R. Hiremath
State of Goa Vs. Pandurang Mohite
State of Maharashtra Vs. Kamal Ahmad Mohammad Vakil Ansari and others
State of Maharashtra Vs. Tulsi Ram Bhanu Das Kambla AIR 2007 SC 3042
Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2003) 7 SCC 643
Vikram Singh @ Vicky Walia and another Vs. State of Punjab and another
Section 65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act is as admissibility of electronic records.
Provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within knowledge of a person, burden of proving that fact is upon him.
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the accused providing an adeq....
A dying declaration can serve as the sole basis for conviction if it is credible and corroborated, emphasizing its legal admissibility in murder cases.
Appeals against acquittal warrant interference only if trial findings perverse or impossible; circumstantial case fails without complete chain excluding innocence, as here due to witness inconsistenc....
Murder of wife – Deceased was last seen along with appellant and in the evening dead body of deceased was found—In such circumstances, there will be reverse onus upon appellant to disbelieve the alle....
Murder – Non-examination of Doctor who conducted autopsy on dead body of deceased and who prepared post-mortem report is not fatal to case of prosecution.
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.