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, 302, 120B, 149, 498A, 201 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313, 162 – Evidence Act – Sections 6, 32, 106, 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, 88-A, 90-A and 131 – Arms Act – Section 25, 27 – Offence of Murder – Power to examine accused – First Information Report – Appeal has been preferred by convicted accused against conviction and sentencing case are that informant deceased father-in-law of accused lodged an FIR marriage of his daughter was solemnized – Held, Court opinion that impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence factually and legally correct and lawful and is not liable to be interfered – Case chains of circumstantial evidence are attached with each other – Motive that there was no cordial relation between 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 deceased had communicated torture beating ill-treatment – Appeal is 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 S.T. No. 238 of 2014 (State of U.P. vs. Rishi Talwar), under Section 302 IPC, Crime No. 211 of 2014 and S.T. No. 239 of 2014 (State of U.P. 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 tahrir a 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 tahrir and 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
Mukesh vs. State (NCT) of Delhi and Others
Ashok vs. State of Maharashtra
Adalat Pandit vs. State of Bihar
Arjun Panditrao Kholkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal
Bhagwan Jagannath Markad vs. State of Maharashtra
Binay Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar
Bhim Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand
Balvir Singh vs. State of Punjab
Babulal vs. State of M.P. (2003) 12 SCC 490
Charanpal vs. State of U.P. (2006) 6 SCC 662
C. Magesh vs. State of Karnataka
G. Parshwanath vs. State of Karnataka
Govindaraju @ Govinda vs. State and Another
Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
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
Madan vs. State of Maharashtra
Motilal and Others vs. State of U.P. AIR 2010 SC 281
Narendra Kumar vs. State (NCT) of Delhi
Narain Singh vs. State of Haryana
Om Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan and Another
Prithipal Singh vs. State of Punjab
Pakla Narayan Swami vs. Emperor
Paramjeet Singh vs. State of Uttrakhand
Ravinder Kumar and Another vs. State of Punjab
R.M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra
Rohtash vs. State of Rajasthan
Sandeep vs. State of U.P. (2012) 6 SCC 107
Shafhi Mohd. vs. State of H.P. (2018) 5 SCC 311
Sucha Singh vs. State of Punjab
Shafhi Mohammad vs. State of H.P. (2018) 2 SCC 801
State of Goa vs. Pandurang Mohite
Shyama Ghos vs. State of West Bengal
Sharad Birdichand Sarda vs. State of Maharastra
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra
State of Maharashtra vs. Tulsi Ram Bhanu Das Kambla
Tomaso Bruno vs. State of U.P. (2015) 7 SCC 178
Vikram Singh vs. State of Punjab
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.
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....
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....
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
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.