IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sunita Agarwal, Sadhna Rani (Thakur), JJ.
Jitendra And Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 113 of 2007
Decided On : 27-04-2022
I.P.C. - Conviction under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of a 16-year-old girl and the grievous injury of her 12-year-old brother. The prosecution alleged that the accused, in conspiracy with their father, committed the murder due to enmity with the victims' family. The injured brother was the only eyewitness to the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimony of the injured eyewitness to be trustworthy and reliable, despite minor discrepancies. The court rejected the defense's alternative theory and concluded that the prosecution had successfully established the mode, manner, and sequence of the incident.
Issues: The issues included the trustworthiness of the injured eyewitness's testimony, the presence of enmity between the parties, and the credibility of the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the greater evidentiary value of the testimony of an injured witness and held that minor discrepancies do not render the evidence untrustworthy. The court also highlighted the limited purpose of an inquest report and the need to separate minor variations in witness statements from material contradictions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
JUDGMENT :
Sadhna Rani (Thakur), J.
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.12.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.16, Meerut in S.T. Nos. 830 of 2002 (State Vs. Anangpal and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.103 of 2002, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced all the three appellants Jitendra, Bovinder and Amit under Section 147 I.P.C. for one year rigorous imprisonment each; under Section 148 I.P.C. for two years rigorous imprisonment each; under Sections 302/149 I.P.C. for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-each and in default, all the three accused persons have to undergo additional imprisonment for three months; under Section 307/149 I.P.C. for seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-each and in default, accused persons have to undergo further simple imprisonment of three months.
3. Accused Anangpal was acquitted of the charges under Sections 120B/ 302 I.P.C by the same judgment in S.T. No. 831 of 2002 (State Vs. Bovinder and Another) and accused Bovinder and Amit were acquitted of the charges under Sections 4/25 Arms Act.
4. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant nos.2 and 3 namely Bovinder and Amit were granted remission by the State. Resultantly, both of them did not press their appeal at the stage of arguments, hence, the appeal is dismissed on their behalf as “Not pressed”. Now, only the appeal of appellant no.1-Jitendra is before us for consideration. It may be noted that the proposal of premature release of appellant Jitendra is said to be pending before the State Government.
5. The law was set into motion by lodging of an F.I.R. by Munesh Devi w/o late Virendra Singh, by submitting a hand written complaint scribed by Umedsingh (brother of first informant Munesh Devi), wherein she had asserted that her husband had died in a road accident about eight years ago and she alongwith her minor son Sumit and minor daughter Kumari Priya @ Bitto used to live in her house in the village Ahmedabad. On 26.02.2002, she went to the house of Jagveer in the village Jaunmana and when she came back on 27.02.2002 at about 6:00 AM, she found that her daughter Kumari Priya was lying dead with the injuries on her person and her son Sumit was lying injured in an unconscious state. When she sprinkled water on Sumit he gained consciousness and disclosed that on the last night i.e. on 26.02.2002 at about 11:00 P.M. Jitendra, Bovinder and Amit all sons of Anangpal armed with knives had assaulted Priya @ Bitto and Sumit with the intention of committing their death and went back presuming both of them to be dead. It was stated that Anangpal was the elder brother of her deceased husband who after the death of her husband developed enmity with her. Previously also, Anangpal and his sons had assaulted her and her children. Jitendra, Bovinder and Amit in conspiracy with their father Anangpal had committed murder of her daughter and inflicted fatal injuries to Sumit with the intention of causing his death. The dead body of Km Priya was lying in her house while the injured Sumit was sent to hospital for the treatment.
6. On the basis of the written complaint, first information report was lodged on 27.02.2002 at 07:30 AM at the Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut. After lodging of the F.I.R., the officer in charge of the police Station Sardhana Sri Jagdish Singh took over the investigation. He collected samples of blood stained and normal earth, took into possession one stick, one pair of chappal, two blood stained pieces of tree bark, one rolling pin, pant and shirt having blood stains over them, bed sheet and mattress and got prepared memos in that regard. He recorded the statement of the complainant and other witnesses, prepared the site plan, got prepared the inquest report and other necessary documents, got the dead body
Ankush Maruti Shinde and others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Anwar Hussain Vs. State of U.P.
Duryodhan Rout Vs. State of Orissa
Lakshman Singh Vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)
Menoka Malik And Others Vs. State of West Bengal And Others
Radha Mohan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Raj Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Rajesh Chandulal Gandhi and others Vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 4 SCC 426
State of M.P. v. Mansingh (2003) 10 SCC 414
The testimony of an injured witness holds greater evidentiary value, and minor discrepancies in witness statements do not necessarily render the evidence untrustworthy.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of witnesses, even if related to the deceased, should not be automatically discarded, and minor discrepancies in the evidence sh....
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant doubt arising from inconsistencies in evidence must benefit the accused.
Direct eyewitness testimony can establish guilt in murder cases, supported by physical evidence, where minor discrepancies do not diminish credibility.
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.
The sufficiency of evidence and the absence of medical reports presented during the trial were the main legal points established in the given judgment.
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.