IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, JJ.
Ajay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Capital Cases No. - 3 of 2019
Decided on : 08-02-2024
Cross-Examination - Criminal Law - Section 452, 302/34, 506, 225 IPC, Section 25/27 of the Arms Act - The court discussed the denial of the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, the legal provisions of Section 309 and 231 Cr.P.C., and the importance of a fair trial. The accused was denied a fair trial due to the failure to cross-examine key witnesses, leading to the rejection of the death sentence and remittance of the case for a fresh opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted and sentenced to death for offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 452 IPC, and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. The trial court denied the accused the opportunity to cross-examine key prosecution witnesses, leading to the rejection of the death sentence and remittance of the case for a fresh opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused was denied a fair trial due to the failure to cross-examine key witnesses, leading to the rejection of the death sentence and remittance of the case for a fresh opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
Issues: The denial of the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and the impact on the accused's fair trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of a fair trial and the right to cross-examine witnesses, as well as the provisions of Section 309 and 231 Cr.P.C. The denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses led to the rejection of the death sentence and remittance of the case for a fresh opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
Final Decision: The death sentence was rejected, and the case was remitted back to the Trial Court for a fresh opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court was directed to provide an appropriate Advocate to the accused-appellant if the appellant does not make any arrangement for their representation, and to conclude the trial expeditiously within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.
JUDGMENT :
Nand Prabha Shukla, J.
1. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sachin Mishra, who have appeared to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae and Ms. Archana Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.
2. This Criminal (Capital) Appeal has been filed by the accused/appellant Ajay Kumar against the Judgement and Order dated 04.04.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Auraiya in Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2016 (State Vs. Ajay Kumar and 3 others) arising out of Case Crime No. 142 of 2014, under Sections 452, 302/34, 506 and 225 IPC, Police Station-Arwakatra, District-Auraiya whereby appellant has been convicted and sentenced to death for offence under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, for offence under Section 452 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2016 (State Vs. Ajay Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 143 of 2014, under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, Police Station-Arwakatra, District-Auraiya whereby appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. The fine shall be recoverable as an arrear of revenue. In default of payment of fine, there shall be no stipulation for additional imprisonment. Eighty per cent of the fine recovered shall be payable to the parents of the deceased as compensation.
3. In the present matter, the Trial Court has proceeded to send a Reference under Section 366 Cr.P.C. for confirmation of death sentence which is being decided herein below:-
4. Prosecution story, in brief, is as follows:-
The first informant Ram Pratap Awasthi, son of Shiv Shankar Lal, resident of Erwatipur, Police Station-Arwakatra, District-Auraiya moved a written Tehrir dated 10.10.2014 at 20:10 P.M. stating that on 10.10.2014 at around 6:30 P.M., when the first informant was sitting in his house talking to Prabha Kant and Ravish Kumar while his young daughter Km. Nisha, aged about 14 years, was busy studying in the courtyard, in the meantime, his neighbourer Ajay Kumar, son of Ram Naresh alias Naresh Chandra Kori, entered into the house and fired at his daughter on her chest with a country-made pistol. Hearing the noise, people gathered and tried to nab the accused but the accused escaped leaving the country-made pistol on the spot. While nabbing, the parts of his torn clothes were left in his hands. The mother of the accused Radha Devi, brother Vijay and his wife intervened and helped him in escaping. Accused Ajay Kumar often stalked his daughter while she was on her way to school and extended threats. He did not complain to anyone due to family prestige. His daughter died on the spot due to fire-arm injury. Hence the FIR.
5. Thus, on the basis of the written report (Tehrir), a Chik FIR No. 142/2014, under Sections 452, 302, 506/34 IPC, Police Station Arwakatra, District-Auraiya was registered against four persons on 10.10.2014. The investigation was entrusted to Station House Officer-Vinod Kumar.
6. On 11.10.2014, on the pointing of accused/appellant Ajay Kumar, a country-made pistol of 315 bore, an empty cartridge and five live cartridges were recovered in a plastic bag kept inside his house. On the basis of which another FIR arising out of Case Crime No. 143 of 2014, under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, Police Station Arwakatra, District-Auraiya was registered against Ajay Kumar.
7. During the course of investigation, plain earth and blood stained earth were recovered on 10.10.2014. The inquest report was prepared on 10.10.2014 at 9.00 P.M. On 11.10.2014, post-mortem report was prepared. During the post-mortem examination, following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased (Km. Nisha):-
Rahul vs. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr. (2022) Supreme (SC) 1136
Rakesh & Anr. V State of Madhya Pradesh
Shaik Mukthar and Another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana)
A fair trial must guarantee competent legal representation and adherence to procedural law, failure of which invalidates conviction.
Failure to provide timely, effective legal aid in death penalty trial, denying representation during key stages, violates Article 21 fair trial right, requiring de novo proceedings despite offence gr....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the paramount right to fair trial and legal aid for the accused, as enshrined in the principles of fair trial and the right to life and personal....
Point of Law : In an eye-witness account though motive is not of much of relevance, presence and proof of motive affords a key or pointer to scan evidence in case in that perspective and motive in su....
The duty of the Court to ensure fair trial for both the accused and the State, and the significance of cross-examination in bringing out the truth and testing the veracity of witnesses.
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.