IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sunita Agarwal, Subhash Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Ganesh And Others - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 931 of 1999 and 1655 of 2007
Decided On : 30-09-2022
IPC - Criminal Appeals - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 - Summary: The judgment and order dated 21.04.1999 passed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 647 of 1997 (State Vs. Ganesh and others), S.T. No. 863 of 1997 (State Vs. Sriram), S.T. No. 1042 of 1997 (State Vs. Charan Singh), S.T. No. 1559 of 1997 (State Vs. Raju and others), arising out of Crime No. 08 of 1997, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 IPC, convicted and sentenced the appellants Sriram, Ganesh, Rajveer s/o Harbans, Rajveer s/o Naththu, Shekhar, Pramod, Vijendra @ Banti and Rohtash. The prosecution case involved an incident of murder and attempted murder, with communal rivalry being the motive. The witnesses provided detailed accounts of the incident, including the identification of the accused, the injuries sustained, and the sequence of events. The court found the testimony of the witnesses to be reliable and trustworthy, and the medical evidence corroborated the ocular testimony. The court affirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants.
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.
1. These criminal appeals emanate from the judgment and order dated 21.04.1999 passed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 647 of 1997 (State Vs. Ganesh and others), S.T. No. 863 of 1997 (State Vs. Sriram), S.T. No. 1042 of 1997 (State Vs. Charan Singh), S.T. No. 1559 of 1997 (State Vs. Raju and others), arising out of Crime No. 08 of 1997, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 IPC, Police Station Hashtinapur, District Meerut, whereby the appellants Sriram, Ganesh, Rajveer s/o Harbans, Rajveer s/o Naththu, Shekhar, Pramod, Vijendra @ Banti and Rohtash, each have been convicted and sentenced under Section 148 IPC for three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine they have to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of six months; under Section 307/149 IPC for seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine they have to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of two years and Section 302/149 IPC for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine they have to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of three years. All the punishments are to run concurrently. Accused Charan Singh, Raju and Pintu were acquitted of the charges.
2. During pendency of the appeal, appellant Ganesh had died, therefore, appeal on his behalf stood abated.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.1.1997 at about 3.10 a.m., an F.I.R. was lodged at the Police Station Hashtinapur, District Meerut by the informant Ved Prakash r/s Village Rustampur Bhikund, P.S. Hashtinapur, District Meerut by filing a written report stating therein that on 16/17.1.1997, in the mid night he along with his uncle Rohtash, Mauli, Narendra, Sanjay, Baleshwar residents of Bhikund were sleeping in their house. He and his uncle Rohtash were sleeping in the varandan where lantern was lit up. At about 12 o’clock in the mid night, near about one dozen people in the police attire equipped with weapons came to their house and woke up his uncle, asked him to get the door opened. The informant was told by his uncle Rohtash that that was the gang of dacoit Sriram resident of Kishunpur. He and his uncle Rohtash identified Sriram, Ganesh, Rajveer Jatav, Banti Jatav, Pramod, Shekhar, Rajveer s/o Natthu but remaining six persons could not be identified. As soon as the door was opened, Sriram and Ganesh along with their other companions started firing on the sons of Rohtash, who were sleeping inside. Due to fear the informant hid himself in a nearby hut. When the assailants came out, the informant heard that Sriram was abusing to ‘Gurjars’ and saying that he took revenge of ‘Ikwara Kand’. The accused person thereafter went to the baithaka of Kartar Singh and made fire while abusing the ‘Gurgars’ and then went away towards the forest. The informant then went to his Dukriya (room) where he saw in the torch light that Rohtash and his son Baleshwar were lying injured and Narendra, Mauli and Sanjay sons of Rohtash were lying dead. In the meantime, Dhan Singh came there and told him that the gang of dacoit Sriram had murdered his cousin Kartar Singh and Babu as also his son Subhash. The informant went to the police station with his injured uncle Rohtash, brother Baleshwar and Dhan Singh on the same day at about 3.10 a.m. and filed the written report, on the basis of which the case was registered as Crime No. 08 of 1997 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/307 IPC. The detail of the case was entered into the G.D. as report No. 6 dated 17.01.1997.
4. The investigation of the case was handed over to the Station House Officer R.P. Gupta.
5. Investigating Officer along with S.I. Brij Mohan Singh Rana went to the place of occurrence where on the direction of the investigating officer, S.I. Brij Mohan Singh Rana conducted the inquest of the deceased persons and inquest reports were prepared by him along with othe
Brahm Swaroop and another vs. State of U.P. (2011) 6 SCC 288
State of U.P. v. Naresh & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 324
Bhajan Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 421
Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 10 SCC 259
The testimony of the witnesses was found to be reliable and trustworthy, and the medical evidence corroborated the ocular testimony, leading to the affirmation of the judgment and order of conviction....
Conviction for mass murder under 302/149 IPC set aside due to unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence from related witnesses; doubtful night identification, improbable presence/story; benefit of do....
(1) Appreciation of evidence – Testimonies of prosecution witnesses, before their acceptance must be tested on established parameters of appreciation of evidence.(2) Appreciation of evidence – Positi....
The significance of corroborative eyewitness testimony in criminal cases, with minor discrepancies not undermining evidence credibility, unless they affect core facts established beyond reasonable do....
The acquittal of the accused was based on the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt amidst significant inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies.
Reliable eye-witness testimony of natural witnesses, consistent with medical evidence and prompt FIR, sustains murder conviction under 302/34 IPC despite alleged enmity.
Conviction upheld - Reliability of witness testimony - It is settled that merely because witnesses are close relatives of victim, their testimonies cannot be discarded. Relationship with one of parti....
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.