Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUNEET KUMAR, SYED WAIZ MIAN, JJ.
Hakim – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1 of 2019, Criminal Appeal No. - 5907 of 2019, Criminal Appeal No.6632 of 2019, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2 of 2019, Criminal Appeal No.6501 of 2019, Criminal Appeal No. - 3104 of 2021, Jail Appeal No.151 of 2019
Decided on : 07-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Lalit Kumar Shukla, Ashutosh Singh, Jawahir Yadav, Deepak Kumar Pandey
For the Respondent: Anil Kumar Pandey

The testimony of interested witnesses can form the basis of conviction if found to be reliable, and medical evidence should be carefully considered in determining the timing of events.

Headnote:
Bail Applications - Criminal Law - Sections-148, 302 read with 149 I.P.C. - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a First Information Report filed against multiple appellants for their involvement in a shooting incident resulting in the death of the deceased. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies and medical reports to support the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence presented by the prosecution to be reliable and trustworthy, leading to the conviction of the appellants under Sections-147, 148, 302, read with 149 I.P.C. The court rejected the bail applications and upheld the trial court's judgment and order.
Issues: The issues included the timing of the First Information Report, the reliability of witness testimonies, and the medical evidence regarding the time of death of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the reliability of witness testimonies, stating that the testimony of interested witnesses can form the basis of conviction if found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable. The court also considered the medical evidence and rejected the arguments presented by the appellants' counsel.
Final Decision: The court rejected the bail applications and upheld the trial court's judgment and order, finding the appellants not entitled to bail.

JUDGMENT :

Syed Waiz Mian, J.

1. Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Lalit Kumar Shukla, Ashutosh Singh and Jawahar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Deepak Kumar Pandey, learned Amicus Curiae, Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The aforementioned Criminal Appeal No. 6632 of 2019, Hakim vs. State, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3 Mathura, in Session Trial No. 803 of 2013, State vs. Hakim Singh & Anr., arising Out of Case Crime No. 06 of 2013, under Sections-148, 302 read with 149 I.P.C., convicting the appellant U/s 148 I.P.C. and sentencing them three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-in case of default of payment of fine further three months additional imprisonment and U/s 302 read with 149 I.P.C. sentencing them life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/-and in case of default of payment of fine further one year additional imprisonment and all the sentences were runs concurrently.

Criminal Appeal No. 5907 of 2019, Kishani vs. State of U.P., has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2019, passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No. 3, Mathura, in S.T. No. 299 of 2013, State vs. Kishani & Ors, arising out of Case Crime No. 6 of 2013, under Sections-148, 302/149 I.P.C., Police Station-Refinary, District-Mathura, convicting the appellant under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentencing the appellant for three years rigorous imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default of payment the appellant shall undergo three months additional imprisonment, and under Section 302/149 I.P.C. sentencing the appellant for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/-and in default of payment the appellant shall undergo one year additional imprisonment and all the sentences run concurrently.

Criminal Appeal No. 6501 of 2019, Ajay Singh @ Ajju vs. State of U.P., has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2019, passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No. 3, Mathura, in S.T. No. 299 of 2013 (leading case), State vs. Kishani & Ors, and S.T. No. 344 of 2014 (State vs. Hakim Singh & Anr.) convicting the appellant under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentencing the appellant for three years rigorous imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default of payment the appellant shall undergo three months additional imprisonment, and under Section 302/149 I.P.C. sentencing the appellant for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/-and in default of payment the appellant shall undergo one year additional imprisonment and all the sentences run concurrently.

Criminal Appeal No. 3104 of 2019, Lauki vs. State of U.P., has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2019 as well as 02.04.2021, passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No. 3, Mathura, in S.T. No. 344 of 2014 (State vs. Hakim Singh & Anr.) convicting the appellant under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentencing the appellant for three years rigorous imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default of payment the appellant shall undergo three months additional imprisonment, and under Section 302/149 I.P.C. sentencing the appellant for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/-and in default of payment the appellant shall undergo one year additional imprisonment and all the sentences run concurrently.

Jail Appeal No. 151 of 2019, Hakim vs. State of U.P., has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2019 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No. 3, Mathura, in S.T. No. 344 of 2014 (State vs. Hakim Singh & Anr.) convicting the appellant under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentencing the appellant for three years rigorous imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default of payment the appellant shall undergo three months additional imprisonment, and under Section 302/149 I.P.C. sentencing the appellant for life imprison