SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(All) 1663

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sunita Agarwal, Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, JJ.
Net Ram and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1130 of 1990
Decided On : 13-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Subodh Kumar, Avanish Pratap Singh, Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, Mohd. Jamshed Khan, Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, Shashwat Shukla ( A.C.), Udai Bhan Singh

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 34 - Criminal Appeal No. 1130 of 1990 - Conviction and sentence for life imprisonment upheld for the murder of Ram Charan by three accused who acted in concert. Court emphasized that evidence of related witnesses requires careful scrutiny but deemed credible due to corroboration with medical findings and motive established by pending criminal case against the accused. (Paras 1-90)

(B) Common Intent - To determine liability under Section 34, the prosecution must prove that the accused acted in concert with a prearranged plan. (Para 68)

Facts of the case:
Accused persons killed Ram Charan on 16.05.1987 during a confrontation linked to a prior dacoity. Delayed FIR explained by fear of the accused but lodged promptly after the informant's courage was bolstered by a village watchman. (Paras 4-6, 84-88)

Findings of Court:
Evidence of two eyewitnesses supported by medical testimony; motive proved due to previous animosity. The court affirmed the trial court's conviction and sentence, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments challenging the credibility of witnesses or evidence. (Paras 90-92)

Issues: Did the eyewitness accounts hold sufficient credibility despite their relation to the deceased? Was the prosecution successful in establishing common intention among the accused? (Paras 9-10, 68)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that relatives can be reliable witnesses; timelines and corroborating evidence established the accused's culpability, affirming joint liability under common intention. (Paras 9-10, 68)

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.

Table of Content
1. factual summary of the appeal (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments presented by appellant and state (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
3. considerations regarding witness credibility (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. description and validation of the crime scene (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
5. common intention as a basis for liability (Para 34 , 70)
6. establishment and importance of motive (Para 46 , 49 , 68)
7. final order and judgment issued (Para 90 , 91 , 92)

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal is against the judgment and order of sentence dated 25.05.1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No.394 of 1987 (State Vs. Netram and Ors.), under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, Police Station Aonla, District Bareilly, whereby the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860.

2. The instant appeal was preferred by three convicted accused namely Netram, Naresh and Krishna Pal, but during the pendency of the appeal, appellant no.1 “Net Ram” and appellant no.3 “Krishna Pal” died. The appeal to their extent was abated vide order dated 23.07.2019. Presently, the appellant no.2 “Naresh” is the sole surviving appellant who is in jail since 19.08.2019.

3. Heard learned counsel Sri Udai Bhan Singh on behalf of the sole surviving appellant “Naresh” and learned Additional Government Advocate Ms. Arti Agarwal for the State.

Factual Matrix

4. Briefly stating the prosecution case as emerged from the first information report lodged on 17.05.1987 on the oral information of the incident given by the informant Ram Kumar S/o Bhawani Singh R/o Village Bahadurpur Gautiya about the incident dated 16.05.1987 at about 07:00 P.M. is that his father-in-law “Ram Charan” R/o Village Bhimlor came to his Village Bahadurpur Gautiya to return his bulls at about 05:00 P.M. He told that his maternal brother “Virendra Pal” R/o Village Baghaul came to his house, therefore, he had to go back home. The informant also accompanied his father-in-law i.e. Ram Charan (deceased) to meet Virendra Pal and they left the village Bahadurpur Gautiya proceeding to village Bhimlor, which was about one mile away from the village of the first informant. At about 07:00 P.M., when they reached infront of the shop of Nankoo, the accused/appellant Naresh, a native of the village Bahadurpur Gautiya of the first informant pounced armed with a country made pistol (tamancha). Seeing him, the father-in-law of the first informant (deceased) ran towards East, the accused “Naresh” chased him and from the East direction accused “Krishna Pal” also appeared armed with a country made pistol alongwith accused “Net Ram” with spear in his hand. Naresh and Krishna Pal both had fired one shot from their fire arms on the informant’s father-in-law (deceased Ram Charan) and the accused Net Ram inflicted a blow of spear on him. The deceased fell down screaming on the earth. The informant raised alarm for rescue in response to which Virendra Pal R/o Village Baghaul and Nankoo rushed to the spot of the incident from the shop of Nankoo but the accused persons fled away. When the informant alongwith other people gathered at the spot and reached near the victim “Ram Charan”, they found him dead. The motive to commit the crime as stated in the report is about 2 ½ years ago, the assailants had committed dacoity in the house of the deceased “Ram Charan” and a criminal case was pending wherein the statement of witnesses was to be recorded on 05.05.1987 but the accused persons got it adjourned and further date fixed was 20.05.1987.

5. The first information report of the incident was lodged in the morning of 17.05.1987 at about 06:30 A.M., the reason behind the delay in lodging the report has been explained in the first information report itself that the informant could not dare to go to the police station to lodge the report in the nig

                        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                        1
                        2
                        3
                        4
                        5
                        6
                        7
                        8
                        9
                        10
                        11
                        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                        supreme today icon
                        logo-black

                        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

                        qr

                        Scan Me!

                        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                        whatsapp-icon Back to top