IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Shyam Behari Mishra & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1092, 1884 of 2005
Decided On : 24-03-2023
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302/34 and 307/34 - Life Imprisonment - Convicting and Sentencing - Post-mortem to Mortuary - Incriminating was recovered - Whether blood fall on jeep or not he cannot say - His father was lying straight - Held, In this case occurrence started on exhortation of accused a government employee after that rest of the two accused persons committed crime - It is established that accused persons were together and were waiting for deceased to return and when he reached shop of and slowed down his scooter due to drainage accused exhorted his sons that he should not be escaped thereafter accused stopped the scooter by standing ahead and accused shot in chest of deceased and when witnesses ran towards place of occurrence then also fired at informant - This incident occurred only on exhortation of accused – Appeal Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.
1. These two appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 2.3.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No.5, Allahabad, in S.T. No. 807 of 2000 State Vs. Shyam Bihari Mishra and Others, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Police Station Sarai Inayat, District- Allahabad, convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for life imprisonment and under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC for 3 years rigorous imprisonment. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that informant Shiv Prakash Tiwari r/o Kotwa, police station- Sarai Inayat, Allahabad presented a tehrir Ex. Ka-1 on 10.4.2000 at 9:30 a.m. stating therein that today at about 8:30 am, his brother Jai Prakash Tiwari was returning after worshiping at Goddess Maa Endree Devi Temple with nephew (Bhanja) Kuldeep Mishra on a scooter when he reached near his house, he slowed down his scooter due to drain, Shyam Bihari Mishra exhorted to kill him, his son Bimal Kumar Mishra stopped his scooter from the front and Kamal Mishra, placed a country made fire-arm on the chest of his brother Jai Prakash and fired. Hearing the sound of the fire he, Pawan Tiwari and Jai Hind reached the spot and saw the occurrence and chased the accused persons. In the meantime, Vimal Kumar Mishra with the intention to kill him also fired at him (confront). He ducked behind a pile of new bricks. Therefore, the bullet did not hit him. According to the informant there was old land enmity between the parties. His brother Jai Prakash is in a serious condition, he requested to lodge the F.I.R.
3. On the basis of Tehrir Ex. Ka-1, Chick F.I.R. Ex. Ka-8 was prepared. P.W.6 S.O. Kripa Shankar Dixit started investigation. He reached on the spot and took sample of blood stained and plain soil and prepared recovery memo Ex. Ka-4 and spot map Ex. Ka-4. He searched the house of accused persons and prepared recovery memo Ex. Ka-5. The injured Jai Prakash Tiwari was first of all taken to the police station wherefrom he was sent to Swaroop Rani Nehru Hospital, Allahabad, where he was declared brought dead. There, Chauki Incharge Kotwali, Sant Kumar Chaturvedi prepared inquest report and body was sent for post-mortem to Mortuary on 11.4.2000 at 2:00 p.m. where Dr. K.N. Joshi conducted the autopsy. On 20.4.2000 after getting information about the basement in the house of the accused persons the I.O. visited and searched the house of the accused persons but nothing incriminating was recovered.
4. On 28.4.2000, alleged weapon used in commission of crime was recovered upon the pointing of accused persons from their house containing one country made fire arm of 303 bore, two live cartridges of 303 bore and 12 bombs of which recovery memo Ex. Ka 5 was prepared.
5. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 302, 307 and 504 /34 of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter it was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Allahabad, who framed the charges under Section 302/34 and 307/34 IPC. Accused persons denied the charges and sought trial.
6. Prosecution examined following witnesses to prove the charges
| P.W.1 | Shiv Prakash Tiwari, informant |
| P.W.2 | Satya Prakash Tiwari, scribe, independent witness |
| P.W.3 | Jai Hind Singh, Independent witness |
| P.W.4 | Pawan Tiwari, son of the deceased |
| P.W.5 | Dr. K.N. Joshi, who did autopsy. |
| P.W.6 | Kripa Shankar Dixit, the then S.O and I.O. of the case, |
| P.W.7 | Badri Prasad Mishra, constable moharrir, |
| P.W.8 | Sant Kumar Chaturvedi, who prepared inquest |
Documentary evidence :
| Ex. Ka-1 | Tehrir |
| Ex. Ka-2 | Post-mortem report |
| Ex. Ka-3 & Ex. Ka-6 | Site plans |
| Ex. Ka-4 | Blood stained soil |
| Ex. | |
Podda Narain Vs. State of A.P.
Swaran Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Bharat Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Sarvesh Narain Shukla Vs. Daroga Singh
Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra
Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Haryana
Ramesh Harijan Vs. State of U.P.
Sheo Shankar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
Dhanaj Singh Vs. State of Punjab
M.K. Upadhyaya Vs. State of A.P.
Anand Mohan Vs. State of Bihar
Ramdev and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan
State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu
Binay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar
State of U.P. Vs. Sughar Singh
Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P.
Shaik Sattar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another
Adalat Pandit Vs. State of Bihar
Barendra Kumar Ghosh Vs. King Emperor
Maruti Rama Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra
State of U.P. Vs. Parshuram Yadav
Daud Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Brahm Swaroop Vs. State of U.P.
Shiv Shankar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Samsul Haque Vs. State of Assam
Ganesh Bhavan Patel and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat
Lekhraj @ Hari Singh Vs. State of Gujarat
Saddik @ Lalo Gulam Hussein Shaikh and others v. State of Gujarat
Raj Gopal Vs. Muthupandi @ Thavakkalai and others
Girish Yadav and others Vs. State of M.P.
Maharaj Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Ram Sajeevan Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar
State of U.P. Vs. Gokaran and Others
Pala Singh Vs. State of Punjab
State of Punjab Vs. Hakam Singh
The court emphasized that framing charges requires a prima facie case supported by credible evidence and witness statements without conducting a mini trial.
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.