IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Vinod Diwakar, JJ.
Angad Rai @ Jhullan Rai @ Fhulak and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. -3832 of 2014
Decided On : 23-05-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 506, 120B – Offence of murder – Punishment for criminal conspiracy – Punishment for criminal intimidation – – Held, On evaluation of evidence led by prosecution in this case and on basis of discussions held above, Court find that it would not be safe to rely upon testimony of sole eye-witness, namely PW-4, to convict accused appellants under Section 302, 506 IPC – Finding returned by court below with regard to guilt of accused appellants is, therefore, liable to be reversed – Court have also factored in fact that accused appellants have remained in incarceration for over sixteen years and once a doubt is raised with regard to their implication it would not be safe to hold them guilty – Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shashi Bhushan Kunwar and Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, Advocates for the appellant Angad Rai @ Jhullan Rai @ Fhulak; Sri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Shambhawi Shukla, Advocate for the appellant Umesh Rai @ Gora Rai; Sri Arunendra Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State; Sri Durgesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and perused the materials placed on record including the lower court records.
2. This appeal is by the accused Angad Rai @ Jhullan Rai @ Fhulak and Umesh Rai @ Gora Rai challenging their conviction and sentence vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.01, Ghazipur in Sessions Trial No. 140 of 2006, arising out of Case Crime No. 493 of 2005, under Sections 302, 506 IPC, Police Station Muhammadabad, District Ghazipur; whereby they have been sentenced to life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 10000/-coupled with a default sentence of one year imprisonment, under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and under Section 506 IPC, five years imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 5000/-coupled with a default sentence of six months, each. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
3. Accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the murder of Rajendra Rai (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) in the morning hours on 27.6.2005. A written report was made in respect of the incident by the father of the deceased namely Kapil Dev Rai. This written report was scribed by Rakesh Kumar Rai, who happens to be the son of the deceased. The written report states that the informant’s son Rajendra Rai is an active member of political party (we deem it appropriate to avoid referring the name of party as it has no relevance for the matter in issue) and as the Zila Panchayat and Kshettra Panchayat Elections were nearby, as such, Afzal Ansari (Member of Parliament Ghazipur) and his younger brother Mukhtar Ansari (MLA) were attempting to get the deceased in their party. About fifteen days prior to the incident the deceased was stopped at Muhammadabad and was told that since he is the husband of the Ex-Block Pramukh of Block Bhawarkol if he leaves the company of Krishnanand Rai and joins their party, then he would be benefited and it would secure his life and property. Again on 26/27.6.2005, the aforesaid persons sent message through the accused Umesh Rai @ Gora Rai alongwith three others, who came to informant’s house at village Vachchhalpur and threatened that since the deceased is not joining the political party of the aforesaid two persons and is also not dissociating himself with Krishnanand Rai, as such, his life is at risk. The informant’s son got frightened and divulged the receiving of threat, to the informant. In order to report such threat to the police, the informant alongwith the deceased were going to police station in the next morning at about 6.30 am, when at village Mathiya, under a planned conspiracy of Mukhtar Ansari and Afzal Ansari, the accused Umesh Rai @ Gora Rai alongwith three unknown persons exhorted that as the deceased is not joining the party of Afzal Ansari and Mukhtar Ansari, as such, he would face the consequences. The informant’s son ran in order to save himself but the accused chased him inside the house of Shiv Kumar Yadav and shot him dead. The informant’s son accordingly has died and at the place of occurrence Chandra Shekhar Rai and various other persons have arrived, who have seen the incident, but due to fear of the accused they could do nothing. A request was thus made to lodge the report and take action against the guilty persons. Based on such written report, first information report (Exhibit Ka-7) came to be registered as Case Crime No. 493 of 2005, under Sections 302/506/120B IPC at 7.40 a.m. at Police Station Muhammadabad, District
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat
Ganapathi and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2018) 5 SCC 549
Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381
Raju alias Balachandran and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 12 SCC 701
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 ....
Conviction for mass murder under 302/149 IPC set aside due to unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence from related witnesses; doubtful night identification, improbable presence/story; benefit of do....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and contradictions and doubts in the evidence can lead to the f....
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.