Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAMESH SINHA, RENU AGARWAL, JJ.
Ram Khelawan Alias Bhagtu - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1082, 1100 of 2005
Decided On : 14-02-2023
Conviction - Criminal Appeal - Section 302 IPC - [MURDER] - [Section 302, 34 IPC] - The court discussed the evidence and concluded that the accused acted in furtherance of common intention to assault the deceased. The main assailant was convicted under Section 302 IPC, while the other accused were acquitted of the charges under Section 394 IPC. The court found no evidence of the other accused carrying weapons or assaulting the deceased, and no motive was disclosed in the FIR. The judgment and order of the trial court was set aside, and the appellants were ordered to be released.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased and his brother were attacked by the appellants and others, resulting in the death of the deceased. The prosecution relied on eyewitness accounts and documentary evidence to prove the case. The accused claimed to be falsely implicated and raised concerns about the medical evidence and contradictions in witness testimony.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the main assailant was guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC, but acquitted the other accused due to lack of evidence of their involvement in the assault. The court also noted discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including the absence of a disclosed motive and the development of the case details during the trial.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the evidence of the assault, the involvement of the accused, the presence of a motive, and the reliability of witness testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of establishing a clear motive and direct evidence of involvement in the crime. It highlighted the need for consistency and reliability in witness testimony and cautioned against relying on presumptions or developments in the case during the trial.
Final Decision: The judgment and order of the trial court were set aside, and the appellants were ordered to be released. The court found insufficient evidence to convict the appellants and emphasized the lack of a disclosed motive and the development of the case details during the trial.
JUDGMENT :
Renu Agarwal, J.
1. The present criminal appeals have been preferred against judgment and order dated 10.08.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No. 1, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 236 of 1999 whereby the appellants Ram Khelawan alias Bhagtu and Santosh have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for two months.
2. Wrapping the facts in brief, the brother of complainant was operator in Irrigation Department. He went to operate canal on 03.12.1998 at about 9 p.m. carrying his licensed gun with him along with the complainant and Shri Ram. As soon as the complainant, his brother Krishan Kumar (deceased) and Shri Ram reached nearby Dev Sthan in the village accused Mishri Lal, Santosh and Ram Khelawan surrounded them and shot fired at Krishan Kumar. The fire hit on the left side of abdomen of Krishan Kumar and he fell down.
3. When the deceased raised alarm, the witnesses Jai Kumar, Ashok and other villagers reached at the place of occurrence and the appellants took to their heels towards north of the village snatching the licensed gun of Krishan Kumar. The accused were identified in the moon lit light. Cartridge belt and cycle of Krishan Kumar were lying at the spot. The complainant and Shri Ram carried the injured to the district hospital, Sitapur with the help of villagers.
4. The FIR indicates that Mishri Lal and Krishna Kumar had altercation and hot exchanges few days ago and due to this animosity this incident took place. On the basis of written report FIR was lodged at Police Station Khairabad district Sitapur under Section 302/34 and 394 IPC and the same was endorsed in G.D No. 2 on 04.12.1998. A copy of chik report and GD were sent by Constable 839 Krishan Pal to Station House Officer Ajai Kumar Singh who inspected the spot, prepared site plan on the same date i.e. on 04.12.1998, collected the plain and blood stained earth, cartridges belt and bicycle of the deceased and prepared recovery memo thereof.
5. The injured Krishan Kumar was referred to K.G.M.C, Lucknow by district hospital, Sitapur and was further referred to Seva Hospital and Research Institute, Lucknow. He was admitted in Seva Hospital and Research Institute on 01.01.1999 where he died on 12.01.1999 at about 08:40 a.m. The inquest of the deceased was conducted by S.I. Neelam Bisht on 12.01.1999 and dead body was sent for autopsy along with necessary papers, photo nash, challan nash, letter to CMO and R.I. Sample Seal, etc.
6. Autopsy was conducted by Dr. V.K. Mishra on the same date i.e. on 12.01.1999 at the mortuary of K.G.M.C, Lucknow. On the basis of death report of the deceased the case was converted into Section 302, 304 IPC from 307, 304 IPC.
7. Investigating officer recorded the statement of complainant and witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC and after collecting sufficient evidences submitted charge-sheet in court. After taking cognizance of the case, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Court of Sessions, Sitapur framed charges against the accused under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and under Section 394 IPC. The accused abjured from the charges and claimed to be tried.
8. In order to prove the case the prosecution adduced the following witnesses :
2. P.W.-2 Ashok Kumar (Eye-witness)
3. P.W.-3 Anoop Kumar who proved Ex ka-1
4. P.W-4 Ajai Kumar Singh the investigating Officer.
5. P.W.-5 Constable 389 Sanjay Singh who proved the chik FIR, GD.
9. Besides ocular evidence the prosecution relied upon following documentary evidences :
2. Site Plan ( Ex. Ka-2).
3. Recovery memo of plain and stained earth (Ex.Ka-3). 4.Cartridge belt (Ex.Ka-4 ).
5. Recovery memo of cycle of deceased (Ex.Ka-5).
6. Statement of Krishan Kumar (now deceased) under Section 161 Cr.P.C (Ex.ka-6).
7. Recovery memo
The judgment emphasizes the need for clear evidence of motive and direct involvement in a crime, cautioning against relying on presumptions or developments in the case during the trial.
Conviction modified - Offence of Murder - Injured witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 had received injuries of blunt object, which were caused by accused-appellants with Lathis and Dandas but injuries w....
Murder - Conviction - Appellatn murdered deceased with a deadly weapon i.e. countrymade pistol, which was his individual act and he is responsible for the same, hence, he is convicted for the offence....
Conviction requires overt acts attributed to accused; acquittals followed evidentiary insufficiencies while some convictions were altered from section 149 to 34 due to lack of proof of unlawful assem....
The necessity of proving common intention under Section 34 IPC was emphasized, leading to convictions for individuals directly involved while acquitting others without adequate evidence.
Conviction for murder was altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of evidence for intent, emphasizing that premeditated murder requires clear intent, especially absent motive....
To attract the applicability of section 34 of the IPC the prosecution is under an obligation to establish that there existed a common intention which requires a prearranged plan.In the absence of a p....
The absence of intent to kill led to the reclassification of charges from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to manslaughter under Section 304 Part II IPC, emphasizing lack of premeditation and specific intent due to sudden provocation.
The lack of evidence identifying which appellant inflicted the fatal injury necessitates a conviction reduction to a lesser charge.
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
