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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sunita Agarwal, Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, JJ.
Mohan and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2251 of 1989
Decided On : 13-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Y.K. Shukla, Ramesh Kumar Ojha

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201 - Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and additional terms for accused in a murder case - Evidence of the sole eye witness, a closely related individual, supported by forensic and circumstantial evidence, deemed adequate for convictions despite challenges to credibility and motives. (Paras 1, 10, 30)

(B) Evidence -The law recognizes the testimony of a sole witness as sufficient for conviction if found credible - Motive, while important, is secondary when direct evidence is available. (Paras 25, 41)

(C) First Information Report - Timeliness of lodging the FIR established, countering claims of it being ante-timed - Distance and events adequately explained. (Paras 46, 50)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from the conviction of three accused for the murder of the deceased, driven by a suspected illicit relation, resulting in brutal attack and attempted concealment of the crime. The sole surviving appellant argued the prosecution's failure to produce additional witnesses and conflicting accounts.

Findings of Court:
The prosecution sufficiently proved the involvement of the accused through direct and circumstantial evidence, affirming the convictions.

Issues: The court addressed the sufficiency of evidence from a closely related witness, the relevance of motive, and the credibility of the FIR timing.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the testimony of a sole witness can support a conviction if credible, and that lack of motive does not negate the confessed conduct.

Result: Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld.

Table of Content
1. commencement of appeal and status of appellants. (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual backdrop of the case and investigation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments presented by the defense counsel. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. court's analysis of witness credibility. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. assessment of incident location and witness reliability. (Para 25 , 26 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
6. medical evidence supporting the prosecution's case. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 41 , 42)
7. discussion on the timeliness of the first information report. (Para 44 , 45 , 50 , 53)
8. final conclusion endorsing the conviction. (Para 59 , 60 , 61)

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal has arisen out from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.11.1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura in Sessions Trial No. 187 of 1988 (State Vs. Mohan & Ors.) under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 302, 201 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, Police Station-Sadabad, District Mathura. Accused-applicant Satendra convicted under Section 147 /302 read with Section 149 and 201 INDIAN PENAL CODE , is sentenced with life imprisonment and one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 147 of the I.P.C.; three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 /149 I.P.C. The accused Mohan and Randheer Singh, convicted under Sections 148 /302 I.P.C. read with Section 201 /149 I.P.C. are sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C and three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 /149 I.P.C. They are sentenced with life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C.

2. The present appeal is preferred by three named convicted accused persons namely Satendra S/o Gopichandra, Mohan Singh S/o Brijpal and Randheer S/o Manohar Singh. Two appellants Satendra and Mohan Singh had died during the pendency of the appeal. The present appeal on their behalf stood abated. The appellant no.2, Randheer Singh is the sole surviving appellant in the present appeal. He is in jail since 16.2.2022, in execution of a non-bailable warrant issued by this court for default in the condition of bail granted to him.

Factual Matrix

3. Briefly stating the prosecution case as emerging from the written information submitted by the brother of the deceased namely Banwari in the morning of 26.2.1988 is that at about 9:15 p.m. in the intervening night of 25/26.2.1988, he with his mother Shantidevi, his brother-in-law Suresh Kumar and deceased Prakash were going from their dwelling house at Village Garh Umrao to the place of stay of their guests (Nohra) to meet them. Accused Randheer Singh a native of the same village suspecting that the deceased (Prakash) had illicit relation with his sister Kamla, was inimical to him. He was looking for the opportunity to kill him. When the informant, his deceased brother and mother alongwith Suresh kumar, (brother-in-law of the informant) were on way to Nohra, accused Mohan Singh armed with Katari (Rapier -a little sword type weapon) and Randheer armed with knife with the accused Satendra and two other unknown assailants were seen standing in front of the door of the house of accused Mohan. Satendra and two unknown persons embraced from behind the deceased Prakash and clung with him. Mohan and Randheer Singh began to inflict blows of their Katari and knife on the deceased Prakash from his front side. When the brother-in-law of the informant, the informant himself and his mother tried to rescue him they threatened them to kill them. On their hues and cries, sons of maternal uncle of the informant namely Vijay Kumar and Madan Lal alongwith some other native villagers rushed to the spot who had seen the incident. None of them came ahead to rescue the deceased under fear of the assailants. They (assailants) dragged away the dead body of Prakash from the door of the accused Mohan’s house to a Dharmshala (hospice) across the road and tried to burn the dead body p

                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