Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAHUL CHATURVEDI, MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN IDRISI, JJ.
Rajesh Kumar @ Pappu – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 4982 of 2019, Criminal Appeal No. 5346 of 2019, Criminal Appeal No.5347 of 2019
Decided on : 01-11-2023
The court set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and ordered a retrial in the case where the defense counsel had admitted the genuineness of prosecution documents without summoning the authors of those documents to establish their authenticity. The court held that this admission by the defense counsel was a serious lapse and caused prejudice to the accused-appellants. The court also directed that the retrial be conducted on a day-to-day basis and concluded by a specific date. Additionally, the court granted bail to the accused-appellants during the retrial period.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for life imprisonment and a fine for the offenses under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The conviction was based on the prosecution's case that the appellants had murdered the parents of the informant in a pitch-dark night using firearms. However, the postmortem reports belied the prosecution's case, indicating that there were no firearm injuries on the deceased persons and the cause of death was due to spinal cord damage. The defense counsel had admitted the genuineness of the prosecution documents without summoning the authors of those documents to establish their authenticity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the admission of the genuineness of the prosecution documents by the defense counsel without summoning the authors of those documents to establish their authenticity was a serious lapse and caused prejudice to the accused-appellants. The court held that this admission by the defense counsel was detrimental to the interest of the accused-appellants and amounted to gross injustice. The court also found that the postmortem reports belied the prosecution's case and raised doubts about the cause of death of the deceased persons.
Issues: 1. Whether the admission of the genuineness of prosecution documents by the defense counsel without summoning the authors of those documents to establish their authenticity was a serious lapse and caused prejudice to the accused-appellants? 2. Whether the postmortem reports belied the prosecution's case and raised doubts about the cause of death of the deceased persons?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the admission of the genuineness of prosecution documents by the defense counsel without summoning the authors of those documents to establish their authenticity was a serious lapse and caused prejudice to the accused-appellants. The court reasoned that the admission by the defense counsel was detrimental to the interest of the accused-appellants and amounted to gross injustice. The court also held that the postmortem reports belied the prosecution's case and raised doubts about the cause of death of the deceased persons. 2. The court held that the postmortem reports belied the prosecution's case and raised doubts about the cause of death of the deceased persons. The court reasoned that the postmortem reports indicated that there were no firearm injuries on the deceased persons and the cause of death was due to spinal cord damage. This contradicted the prosecution's case that the appellants had murdered the deceased persons using firearms.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and ordered a retrial in the case. The court directed that the retrial be conducted on a day-to-day basis and concluded by a specific date. Additionally, the court granted bail to the accused-appellants during the retrial period.
JUDGMENT :
Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi, J.
(1). Heard Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Santosh Kumar Rai and Shri L.M. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Shri Ghanshyam Kumar, learned A.G.A.-I for the State of U.P. Perused the record of the case.
(2). Since all the three appeals were admitted on 20.2.2020 and the lower court record is available. Learned counsel for contesting parties are ready and willing to argue the case finally on the merit of the case. They have furnished the summary of the case, moot issues to be raised during arguments and have also supplied the citations on which they want to rely upon. Thus, the Court has got no option or even objection to decide all the three appeals finally with the help and aid of respective counsels for the parties as well as learned counsel for the State.
(3). After the arguments and the judgment was reserved, the Court has lay its hand over a very valuable quotation which gives an insight about the issue involve and plays a pivotal role in deciding these appeals. It reads thus :-
By Clarence Darrow
Aforementioned lines would act as beacon light for us while deciding aforementioned appeals. Elaborating these golden lines, it is evident that courtroom proceeding is an arena whereby two legal opponents representing their respective clients, muster their legal acumen to impress upon the Judge. But it is the Judge and his verdict on the issue and his endeavour to search out the truth by using his robust legal sense, come out his final verdict on the issue.
Thus, from aforesaid, it is established that answer of the aforesaid gobbet is the litmus test for any judgment and deciding the ‘issue’ between the parties.
INTRODUCTORY :-
(4). The learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi vide judgment and order dated 15/16.7.2019 while deciding S.S.T. No.212 of 1999 (State vs. (i) Radhey Shyam Lal s/o Ghorahu Srivastava, (ii) Pratap s/o Ram Awadh (iii) Jagannath s/o Ram Awadh and (iv) Rajesh Kumar @ Pappu @ Gandhi s/o Mohan Srivastava), who were convicted for offence u/s 302/34, 201 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act and were sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50,000/-for the offence u/s 201 I.P.C. for seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000/-and u/s 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act for life sentence and a fine of Rs.50,000/-were awarded and in the case of default in paying the fine amount the additional duration of simple imprisonment were also awarded. All the sentences would run concurrently.
(5). Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of sentence Rajesh Kumar @ Pappu has filed Criminal Appeal No.4982 of 2021, Radhey Shyam Lal has filed Criminal Appeal No.5346 of 2019 and Pratap and Jagannath have filed Criminal Appeal No.5347 of 2019. For the sake of brevity and convenience, all the three appeals are being jointly decided by a common judgment.
(6). After having the marathon arguments advanced by the counsels for the rival parties, it is imperative to give a bird’s eye view to the prosecution story as mentioned in the F.I.R. and other undisputed facts.
(7) FACTUAL MATRIX :
(I) Shri Shyam Narayan Ram on 22.4.1998 around 5.30 in the morning have succeeded in lodging the F.I.R. for the incident said to have been taken place on 21/22.4.1998 itself around 01.00 in the night, under Sections 302/34 and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act against (i) Radhey Shyam Lal, (ii) Pratap Kumhar, (iii) Pappu @ Gandhi and (iv) Jagannath for the alleged killing of his parent Mohan Ram and Smt. Bodha Devi. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is hardly six kilometres.
(II) The First Informant is permanent resident of Police Station Dhanapur, Chandauli. The
The admission of the genuineness of prosecution documents by the defense counsel without summoning the authors of those documents to establish their authenticity is a serious lapse and causes prejudi....
The court emphasized that additional evidence under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. must not prejudice the accused and should only be admitted if necessary to prevent a failure of justice.
The court reaffirms that police conduct during official duties must not infringe on rights, prioritizing eyewitness testimony in establishing guilt over medical evidence, thus validating convictions ....
The mandatory provision of Section 313 CrPC aims to afford the accused an opportunity to explain each and every circumstance and incriminating evidence against them, and failure to comply with this p....
(1) Circumstantial evidence – Accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence subject to satisfaction of expected principles in that regard – In a case of circumstantial evidence, ju....
Provisions of Section 303 of the Cr.P.C. gives right to any person accused of an offence before a criminal Court to be defended by a pleader of his choice. The provisions of Section 304 of the Code o....
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
