IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, JJ.
Rama Kant Dixit – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1268 of 2007
Decided on : 08-05-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 302, 149, 307 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161, 437-A - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 138 – Murder offence – Appeal against conviction - Alleged that he, his son his younger brother were going to Bewar from Mainpuri by his jeep - While on their way ahead of railway crossing, all residents of Bewer armed with rifles and guns, got down from these two vehicles and exhorted to finish them all and thereby take revenge – Held, Prosecution set out to prove and noticed by us in previous part of this judgment coupled with fact that prosecution witnesses of fact are not credible their testimonies are not worthy of trust, very presence of three prosecution witnesses of fact at time and place of occurrence being not fully established, ocular version of the occurrence not being corroborated by medical evidence – Court have no hesitation to hold that findings returned by the trial court for recording the guilt of accused-appellants are not only illegal but also perverse – Court have no hesitation to hold that prosecution has not been able to establish the very story which it set out basis of evidence adduced by prosecution itself – Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.
1. This bunch of criminal appeals is by the accused-appellants assailing a common judgment and order dated 1st February, 2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 97 of 2005 (State Vs. Jagannath and 5 Others) and Sessions Trial No. 104 of 2005 (State Vs. Hariom), arising out of Case Crime No. 286 of 1996, under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 307/149 I.P.C., Police Station-Bhogaon, DistrictMainpuri, whereby all the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment each under Section 148 I.P.C.; seven years rigorous imprisonment each under Section 307/149 I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 30,000/- each and in default thereof, to further undergo one year additional simple imprisonment; life imprisonment each under Section 302/149 I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 70,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo one year additional simple imprisonment each. All the sentences are to run concurrently.
2. As these appeals arise out of the same judgment and order. As such they were clubbed together and are now being decided by this common judgment.
3. We have heard Mr. V.P. Srivastava, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Mr. Rajeev Nayan Singh and Mr. Arun Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant Rama Kant Dixit, Mr. Brijesh Sahai, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Bhavya Sahai, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, Mr. Waquar Ahmad and Abhay Singh Yadav, learned counsels appearing for the accused-appellants Vipin Dixit, Chandra Kant and Hari Om, Mr. Rajiv Lochan Shukla and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the accusedappellant Devendra and Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant Kaushlendra and Mr. Arunendra Singh and Mr. Amit Sinha, learned A.G.As. for the State.
INCIDENT
4. On 6th September, 1996 an incident occurred at around 04:30 p.m. on Mainpuri-Bhogaon road near Raja ka Bagh at a distance of nearly 3 kilometres from Bhogaon Police Station, where six persons travelling in a Commander Jeep from Mainpuri to Bewer were shot dead in broad day light in a brutal shoot-out. Those killed in the incident were Hem Singh, Gajendra Singh alias Tillu, Ram Kishan Singh, Naresh Dixit, Ashok Parihar and Mahesh Yadav.
PROSECUTION CASE
5. The first informant Surendra Singh (P.W.-1) submitted a written report on 6 th September, 1996 at Police Station-Kotwali, District Mainpuri on the basis of which a first information report (Exhibit-ka/8) came to be registered as case crime no. Nill of 1996 at 17.35 p.m. No case crime number was assigned to this FIR, since the offence was committed within the territorial limits of Police Station-Bhogaon. Constable Udai Ram of Police Station-Kotwali brought the FIR and the written report submitted by the first informant to Police Station-Bhogaon on the basis of which case crime no. 286 of 1997 was allotted to the FIR and its contents were recorded in the General Diary maintained at Police Station-Bhogaon.
6. The written report of first informant/P.W.-1 has been proved by him in which it is alleged that he, his son Gajendra Singh alias Tillu, driver Hem Singh Yadav, Mahesh Singh Yadav, Ashok Parihar, Naresh Dixit, ExPradhan Devendra Singh, Santosh Gupta and his younger brother Santosh were going to Bewar from Mainpuri by his jeep. While on their way ahead of railway crossing, a Gypsy and Maruti Van overtook his Jeep at around 4.30 pm and positioned them in front of the jeep. Accused Ramanand, Hariom, Hukam Chand, Anand, Jagannath, Devendra, Vipin, Kaushlendrapal Singh, Raj Bhushan, Billu, all residents of Bewer armed with rifles and guns, got down from these two vehicles and exhorted to finish them all and thereby take revenge. The informant along with Santosh Gupta, Santosh Singh and Devendra Singh ran out of their jeep and from the nearby field saw that all the above named accused persons fired indiscriminately with their rifles and guns, in which exc
Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381
Ganapathi and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2018) 5 SCC 549
Murli & Another Vs. State of Rajashthan reported in (2009) 9 SCC 417
Raju alias Balachandran and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 12 SCC 701
The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness statements and unreliability of witnesses can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
Discrepancies in eyewitness accounts undermined the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to reasonable doubt of their involvement in the crime.
The testimonies of related witnesses must be scrutinized carefully, especially when inconsistencies exist and the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Point of law: Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting ....
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on credible evidence, including witness testimony and medical findings, even absent direct physical evidence like weapon recovery.
The significance of corroborative eyewitness testimony in criminal cases, with minor discrepancies not undermining evidence credibility, unless they affect core facts established beyond reasonable do....
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.