Radhey Shyam VS State of U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, SADHNA RANI (THAKUR), JJ.
Radhey Shyam and Another - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4572 of 2009
Decided On : 09-09-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vijendra Singh, Amit Mishra, Ashutosh Yadav, Shyam Lal, Suresh Dhar Dwivedi

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 506(2) - Conviction for murder and criminal intimidation - Appellants sentenced to life imprisonment for murder with concurrent sentences under criminal intimidation - Case involved a premeditated attack on the deceased using lethal weapons by multiple offenders, leading to fatal injuries. (Paras 2, 60)

(B) Evidence - Eyewitness account - The court held that the testimonies of eyewitnesses, despite minor discrepancies, established a credible narrative of the crime, supporting the prosecution's case. (Para 42)

(C) Common intention - The court affirmed application of Section 34 IPC, opining that both accused shared a common intention to commit murder, justifying joint liability for the acts of each other. (Paras 57, 58)

Facts of the case:
The incident occurred on 20.05.2003, where the deceased was attacked by the appellants and another juvenile accused, using weapons, resulting in multiple injuries and death shortly after. The FIR was lodged following the incident naming the accused. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The court found the prosecution's evidence credible, leading to conviction based on eyewitness testimony and forensic findings of the injuries. (Para 59)

Issues: The court addressed the veracity of eyewitness accounts, the recovery of weapons, and the sufficiency of evidence supporting joint liability under Section 34 IPC. (Paras 30, 57)

Ratio Decidendi: The judiciary emphasized that minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies do not obliterate the overall reliability of their accounts, reinforcing the prosecution narrative. Additionally, participation in a common intention was established among the accused, warranting joint liability for the murder. (Paras 42, 57)

Result: Appeals dismissed, conviction affirmed.

Table of Content
1. introduction of case and conviction details. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of the incident leading to convictions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. medical examination and cause of death. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
4. defence arguments regarding witness credibility. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
5. prosecution rebuttal and evidence reliability. (Para 34 , 36 , 38)
6. court's analysis and acceptance of witness testimonies. (Para 41 , 42)
7. court's findings on common intention and liability. (Para 57 , 58 , 59)
8. conclusion and dismissal of appeal. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63)

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Abhilasha Singh learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Roopak Chaubey learned A.G.A for the State respondent.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court Badaun whereby appellants Radheshyam s/o Dwariki Yadav, Sreepal s/o Dwariki Yadav resident of Shikarpurthana Sahaswan District Badaun have been held guilty of the offences under Sections 302 , 506(2) IPC. Under Section 302 , the appellants have been convicted for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-for each. The default punishment is one year additional rigorous imprisonment. The appellants have been sentenced under Section 506(2) IPC, for two years rigorous imprisonment each. Both the punishments are to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case begins with the first information report lodged on 20.05.2003 at about 08.15 a.m about the incident occurred on the said date at 3.30 a.m. Three persons were named as accused therein amongst whom one Devendra s/o Radheyshyam had been declared juvenile, the inquiry, thus, proceeded against the two appellants Radheyshayam and Sreepal. The first report of the incident was given by Kalyan s/o Badan Singh, P.W-1 herein in writing scribed by Jogendra s/o Mulayam Singh (P.W-2). It was stated therein that Radheyshyam s/o Dwariki, his brother, nephew etc were hooligans (Badmash) and they used to pressurize people and try to dominate them. About 2½ months prior to the incident, Radheyshyam, his brothers Sreepal, Ram Niwas and son Devendra came to the Kolhu of the informant and confronted with his brother Amarpal (deceased) without any reason. The oral and physical altercation which took place between them was pacified with the intervention of villagers. The deceased had no grudges but the assailants were carrying enmity with the deceased since then. On the fateful night i.e 20.05.2003, the informant, his brother Amarpal and nephew Jogendra were in the fields to water it and engine was on. At about 3.30 a.m, Radheyshayam, his younger brother Sreepal and his son Devendra reached at their engine carrying Country made pistol, Tamancha and Sariya (iron rod). At that time, Amarpal was sitting near the engine smoking bidi where a lantern was lit up. His nephew Jogendra was sleeping and he himself (the informant) was watering sugarcane and Peppermint field at around 50 yards from them, a lantern was also lit up at that place. Radheyshyam hit in the head of Amarpal through sariya while he was sitting, on being hit, Amarpal screamed and ran towards the informant, Radheyshyam chased Amarpal and caught hold of him at about 20-25 yards away and all three accused killed him by Sariya and fires from Tamancha. When the informant and his nephew Jogendra ran towards the assailants they threatened them to kill and ran away through the field of Panna. While leaving the dead body on the spot, the informant Kalyan went to lodge the written report.

4. It is proved by P.W-7, Constable Moharir, posted in the police station concerned on the date of incident, that he had prepared the check report on the basis of the written report given by the informant. The original report registered as Paper no.4Ka was proved in his handwriting and signature as Exhibit Ka-'9'. The factum of registration of the case was entered in G.D Rapat no.12 at about 8.15 hours. The original G.D was brought in the Court an