IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, JJ.
Tejvir – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1387, 1648, 1685 of 2009
Decided on : 27-02-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 302, 149, 307 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313, 157, 161, 162, 164 – Arms Act – Section 25 – Recovery of Firearm Allegedly – Offence of Murder – Criminal Appeals have been preferred by appellants against impugned judgment and order – Appellants and co-accused persons accused cases were registered against each of appellants basis of recovery of firearm allegedly used in offence – Held, Court have found that there is no cogent and reliable evidence on record to prove charges against accused appellants for which they have tried convicted and sentenced by learned trial Court – Case of prosecution with regard to charges accused appellants are tried and convicted by trial court are not found to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt – Court have no hesitation in allowing these appeals – Appeals are allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.
1. These Criminal Appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the impugned judgment and order dated 6.2.2009 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Firozabad, in S.T. No.235/2006, arising out of Case Crime No. 96 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC and in S.T. Nos. 235A/2006, 235B/2006 and 235C/2006 (State of U.P. Vs. Tejvir and 2 others), arising out of Case Crime Nos.95 of 2005, 99 of 2005 and 9 of 2006, under Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Pachokhara, District Firozabad, whereby the accused-appellants Tejvir, Hariom and Pramod Kumar @ Pappu have been convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC and 25 of Arms Act and sentenced them as under:-
(I) Under Section 302/149 IPC they have to undergo imprisonment for life, with a fine of Rs.5,000/-each, with default stipulation;
(II) Under Section 148 IPC, they have to undergo one year imprisonment; No sentence was awarded under Section 147 IPC as Section 148 is aggravated form of offence of Section 147 IPC;
(III) Under Section 25 of Arms Act, they have to undergo one year imprisonment, with a fine of Rs.1,000/-each with default stipulation in their respective case. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. The main case under Section 147, 148, 307, 302 was registered vide Crime No. 96 of 2005, Police Station Pachokhara, District Firozabad, in which appellants and co-accused persons were named as accused. Other cases were registered under Section 25 of Arms Act against each of the appellants on the basis of recovery of firearm allegedly used in the offence, on their pointing out, and all the four cases were tried together by learned trial Court.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. The appellants are held in jail custody as convict.
4. The prosecution case is based on a written report dated 11.11.2005 (Ex.Ka-1) submitted by the PW-1 the informant Vinod Kumar Dixit and son of deceased Brahm Dutt Dixit. The informant Vinod Kumar lodged the first information report at Police Station Pachokhara (Tundla) District Firozabad and Chik FIR was registered by Constable Muharrir Hari Nandan Singh, vide Crime No.96 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC on 11.11.2005 at 12:05 hours. The chik FIR is marked as Ex.Ka-3. In the FIR, it is alleged that on 11.11.2005 at 9:30 hours, deceased Brahm Dutt Dixit, who is father of the informant, was moving towards Pachokhara Paith (local village market) riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.DL75R7268 and the informant was also following him along with his cousin Neeraj riding over his motorcycle bearing Registration No. UP73J1326. On the way to Pachokhara Paith from his native village Chhikau, the informant noticed that a Maruti Car was parked on the turn of orchard of Prem Singh near Gadhi Thakuran village and as soon as the father of informant reached near the car, his co-villagers Pramod @ Pappu and Tejvir, son of Sardar Singh, Vikas s\o Pramod and Hari Om Singh s\o Tejvir Singh and brother-in-law of Yogesh (name not known) disembarked from the Maruti car and Pramod abused the deceased stating that he had defeated him in Gram Pradhan election and he will not spare him and kill him and at that time accused Pramod, Tejvir, Vikas and Brother-in-law of Yogesh were armed with tamanchas (country made pistols). They had surrounded the deceased and before he could understand the matter, Pramod opened the FIR by tamancha, which he had taken in his hand. The fire shot by Pramod hit him and he fell down in the nearby field after walking some distance. Thereafter, accused persons namely, Vikas, Tejvir and Hariom had opened fire on him by their respective firearms. The deceased got seriously injured in the firing incident. The brother-in-law of Yogesh suddenly fired at informant, however, from which he got narrow escape. The witnesses Omprakash and Rajpal, who were work
Dhanabal And Anr vs State Of Tamil Nadu
Mohd. Khalid vs. State of West Bengal
Ram Briksh @ Jalim Vs. State of Chhatisgarh
Tomso Bruno and Another vs. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178 (SC)
SupremeToday
The quality of evidence and prompt lodging of the FIR are crucial in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
The court upheld the conviction for murder but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing the need for extreme caution in imposing capital punishment.
The prosecution failed to establish the credibility of its key witness, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to insufficient evidence.
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.