Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sunita Agarwal, Subhash Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Manoj – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2540 of 2005
Decided On : 18-05-2022
Murder - Criminal Law - Section 302 IPC - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case against the appellant Manoj for the murder of Gayur. The court analyzes the evidence, including witness testimonies, medical reports, and the sequence of events leading to the murder. The court concludes that the testimony of the sole eyewitness, the father of the deceased, is reliable and consistent with the medical evidence and other testimonies. The court upholds the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and affirms the sentence of imprisonment for life.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the murder of Gayur, who was shot and killed by the appellant Manoj. The prosecution's case is based on the testimony of the deceased's father, the sole eyewitness, and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that the testimony of the sole eyewitness, the father of the deceased, is reliable and consistent with the medical evidence and other testimonies. The court upholds the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and affirms the sentence of imprisonment for life.
Issues: The key issues include the reliability of the sole eyewitness testimony, the consistency of the evidence, and the applicability of Section 302 IPC for the offense of murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relies on the Indian Evidence Act and established legal principles to weigh the testimony of the sole eyewitness and concludes that the evidence is wholly reliable. The court also emphasizes that the relationship of the witness to the deceased does not disqualify the witness from providing credible testimony.
Final Decision: The court dismisses the appeal and affirms the judgment and order dated 7.5.2005, upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Amit Mishra learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Roopak Chaubey learned AGA for the State respondent.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.5.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.10, Meerut in Sessions Trial no.745 of 1993 arising out of Case Crime no.118 of 1993 under Section 302 IPC Police Station-Khekra, Meerut, (current District Baghpat), whereby the appellant Manoj has been convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced for imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/-. The default punishment is one year simple imprisonment.
3. The prosecution story starts with the first information report lodged on 9.6.1993 at about 13.00 hours based on a written report given by Babu Khan (P.W-4) father of deceased Gayur. The date and time of the incident as indicated in the Check FIR is 09.06.1993 at about 12.00 noon. The Case Crime no.118 of 1993 was registered under Section 302 IPC, the report of which was lodged on the information given by P.W-4, the first informant. As per the written report, deceased Gayur s/o Babu khan was aged about 22 years on the date of the incident and was running a shop of Purchun and Cycle repair in his house. On 09.06.1993, while the deceased was in his shop and the first informant, his younger son Kayum, Yaseen s/o Jamalu, Khurshid s/o Nizamuddin and Shamsher s/o Rahmatulla, the residents of the village were also sitting there, accused appellant Manoj s/o Ved Singh Jat came to the shop at about 12.00 noon. Manoj asked deceased Gayur to come with him for some work to which Gayur refused and said that he could not go with him as he was sitting on the shop. Hearing this, the appellant Manoj got angry and wielded his country made pistol and shouted that in case Gayur did not go to the work, he would be killed and would not be spared that day. Hearing that, his son Gayur ran for his life while shouting, in the lane. The appellant Manoj chased Gayur, the first informant and other witnesses ran behind them and at that time in front of the house of Harswaroop Jat, Manoj fired at the back of deceased Gayur. Getting hit, the deceased fell down and died on the spot. The first informant stated that he and the witnesses tried to catch hold of the accused but he ran away wielding his country made pistol.
4. P.W-7, Matin Ahmad, Constable clerk as also P.W-6, the Investigating Officer posted at the Police Station Khekra, on the date of the incident proved preparation of the Check FIR and GD entry on the basis of the written report given by Babu Khan, the first informant. The Check FIR and GD entry of the same day prepared in the handwriting and signature of P.W-7, carbon copy of which was filed on record, were proved as Exhibit Ka-'5' and Ka-'6'; respectively. P.W-7 stated that the original GD had been weeded out. The weeding out report was filed by P.W-7 and proved as Exhibit Ka-8. P.W-7, in cross, stated that the report was lodged at the time shown in the Check FIR and the suggestion of the report being Ante-time was categorically denied.
5. Dr. D.R. Agarwal, P.W-5 proved the post mortem report as Exhibit Ka-'2' being in his handwriting and signature. The injuries found on the person of the deceased as indicated in the post mortem report are:-
2. Wound of exit size 1 cm x 1.5 cm front of chest, about 6 cm below super sternal notch & pellet entangled in the wound. Injury nos.1 and 2 are through and through.
3. Contusion 1 cm x 2.5 cm back of chest about 2 cm below medial to injury no.1.
4. Contusion size 2 x 1.5 cm back of chest and abdomen about 1.5 cm below injury no.3.
One yellow coloured pellet found in the exit wound no.2 was sealed and handed over to Constables Surendra Singh and Manoj Kumar P.S Khakera.
Internal examination
Lungs and heart were punctured, Stomach was filled, Bladder was half filled. Stiffness w
The judgment establishes the principle that the testimony of a sole eyewitness, even if related to the deceased, can be relied upon if found to be wholly reliable, and the court must carefully scruti....
A single reliable eyewitness can sustain a conviction, emphasizing the quality of evidence over quantity, even if the accused was not named in the F.I.R.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on a solitary witness's testimony requires it to be unimpeachable and corroborated.
The judgment established the principle that the evidence of a single eyewitness must be reliable and corroborated by independent evidence from the attending circumstances of the case. The court empha....
The court affirmed the conviction for murder, establishing that the accused's actions demonstrated intent to kill, supported by credible eyewitness and medical evidence.
Conviction under IPC 302/34 upheld on reliable sole eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence and witnesses, despite minor discrepancies and non-examination of investigating officer/docto....
A witness's credibility must withstand scrutiny; inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts can undermine the prosecution's case to the point of reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal.
A conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of one witness unless that testimony is wholly reliable and corroborated by other evidence.
The need for reliable witness testimonies and corroborating evidence, especially in the absence of independent witnesses, to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt.
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
