Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAMESH SINHA, RAJEEV SINGH, JJ.
Nitin Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 540, 669 of 2014
Decided On : 13-05-2021
Conviction - Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the prosecution's reliance on the written complaint, site plan, recovery memo, postmortem report, and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The court also considered the evidence of the accused, the medical officer who conducted the postmortem, and two co-villagers produced as witnesses. The judgment highlighted the contradictions in the prosecution's case and the testimony of the eye witnesses, leading to the benefit of doubt in favor of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of eye witnesses and medical evidence, while the defense presented contradictions in the prosecution's case and produced witnesses to support the appellants' innocence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case created doubt and the benefit of doubt went in favor of the appellants. The court highlighted the contradictions in the prosecution's case and the testimony of the eye witnesses, leading to the conclusion that the incident did not happen as the prosecution claimed.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecution's case, the testimony of the eye witnesses, and the medical evidence. The court also considered the contradictions presented by the defense and the testimony of the co-villagers produced as witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the inherent improbabilities in the prosecution's story, inconsistencies in the testimony of the eye witnesses, and the lack of corroboration with medical evidence. The judgment emphasized the benefit of doubt in favor of the appellants due to the doubts raised by the defense and the contradictions in the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges. They were directed to be released from jail and to furnish bail bond with sureties. The lower court record was to be transmitted for necessary information and compliance.
JUDGMENT :
Rajeev Singh, J.
1. Both the appeals have been filed by appellants namely Nitin Singh and Amit Singh against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.03.2014, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-Court No.5, Faizabad in Session Trial No.31 of 2012, arising out of Case Crime No.552 of 2011, under Section 302 I.P.C. Police Station-Cantt, District Faizabad, whereby learned trial court has convicted the appellants, namely Nitin Singh and Amit Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 12,000/-each, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment for one year. Both the appellants have filed two separate appeals. The aforesaid appeals are being decided by way of common judgment.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 22.03.2011 at about 10:00 p.m., the informant-Ashok Kumar Singh and Ram Kumar Singh riding on one motorcycle and Bhushan Veer Singh and Neeraj Singh riding on another motorcycle were returning from Faizabad to their village-Manapur, when they reached at Raipur canal bridge, they saw in the head light of their motorcycle that the appellants-Nitin Singh and Amit Singh were assaulting one person on the south lane of bridge with danda and axe. When the assailants saw that the bikers are approaching towards them, they left the person and ran away. Thereafter, informant and three other persons reached on the spot and found that the injured (Arun Kumar Singh) was real brother of the informant, they tried to move the injured, who was in pool of blood and found that he was dead. On the written complaint of Ashok Kumar Singh (informant), the FIR in question was lodged as Case Crime No.552 of 2011 (Exhibit K-7) and the same was entered into general diary. On the basis of FIR, the police officers reached on the spot and prepared the site plan and body was sent for postmortem, thereafter the postmortem was conducted on 23.03.2011 at 2:30 p.m.
3. The postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. B.M. Maurya, Medical Officer, who appeared before the trial court as PW-5. As per postmortem report, he found eight ante mortem injuries and opined that the cause of death is due to coma as a result of antemortem injury. The ante mortem injury mentioned in the postmortem report are as follows:-
(ii) Four incised wound of size 4.0 to 4.5 cm length bone deep and 0.8 to 1.0 cm width present in area of 9.0 cm x 6.0 cm on left occipital region and is 5.0 cm postero superior to left ear. Underlying bone is fractured.
(iii) Incised wound of size 6.0 cm x 1.0 cm present on right parietal region and is bone deep 8.0 cm above right ear.
(iv) Contusion size 5.0 cm x 2.0 cm present on tip of left shoulder joint.
(v) Abraded contusion of size 10.0 cm x 3.0 cm present on lateral aspect of left arm 5.0 cm below the tip of left shoulder joint.
(vi) Abraded contusion of size 3.0 cm x 0.5 cm present on exterior aspect of left forearm 6 cm below the elbow joint.
(vii) Abraded contusion of size 3.0 x 1.0 cm present on exterior aspect of right elbow joint.
(viii) Abraded contusion of size 3.0 x 1.0 cm present on medial aspect of right forearm 9.0 cm above the wrist joint.”
4. The injury and external condition of the body of the deceased clearly reveals that death of the deceased is a case of homicide.
5. On the basis of site plan, recovery memo, postmortem report and statements of the accused persons as well as of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that it was a case of homicide which was caused by the appellants, thereafter, charge-sheet was filed and case was committed before the Court of Sessions, which was registered as S.T. No.31 of 2012 and charge was framed against the appellants on 18.02.2012, under Section 302 I.P.C.
6. In support of prosecution case, five witnes
Criminal Law - Witnesses - Reliability of - Benefit of doubt - Evidence of PW-1 (informant) and PW-2 who are chance witnesses and claimed themselves to be eye witnesses of incident. Their evidence do....
The necessity of proving the cause of death beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal trial.
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants caused the victim's death, leading to their acquittal.
The reliability of eyewitness accounts and medical evidence in cases of direct evidence, and the diminished significance of motive in such cases.
The court upheld the conviction of three appellants for murder, emphasizing the credibility of eyewitnesses and the established motive, while acquitting two due to insufficient evidence.
: Conviction can be recorded on the basis of statement of a solitary eye witness provided the witness is trustworthy.
The admissibility of documents and witness testimonies is crucial in establishing a case beyond reasonable doubt.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
