IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTH, RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, JJ.
Amar Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4677 of 2002
Decided On : 26-02-2024
First Information Report - Criminal Appeal - Section 302, Section 149 I.P.C. - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of Gyan Singh and the subsequent trial of six accused under section 302/149 I.P.C. based on the First Information Report filed by the informant Raj Kumar.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the formation of an unlawful assembly with a common object and the knowledge of the accused regarding the likely commission of the offence, leading to the acquittal of the surviving appellants.
Issues: The issues included the delay in lodging the First Information Report, discrepancies in the prosecution's case, and the non-production of key witnesses, such as the deceased's wife, Urmila.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the prosecution to prove the formation of an unlawful assembly and the shared common object beyond reasonable doubt, as well as the importance of producing essential witnesses to unfold the narrative.
Final Decision: The surviving appellants, Devendra Singh, Kehri Singh, and Rakesh Kumar, were acquitted of charges under section 302/149 I.P.C., and their bail bonds were cancelled and sureties discharged.
JUDGMENT :
Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Shri Ravindra Sharma, Shri N.K. Singh and Shri R.B. Singh, learned counsel for the surviving appellant nos.3, 5, and 6; Shri Rishab Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A.-Ist.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 17.10.2002, passed by Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court No.3), Agra in Sessions Trial No. 471 of 1996, convicting and sentencing the appellants under section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- against each accused-appellant and in case of non-payment of fine, to undergo one year’s R.I.
3. This appeal has already been dismissed as abated against appellant no.1, Amar Singh, appellant no.2, Raghuraj Singh and appellant no.4, Ram Saran by the order of this court dated 12.1.2024.The appeal has been pressed only regarding surviving appellant nos. 3, 5 and 6, namely, Devendra Singh, Kehari Singh and Rakesh Kumar.
4. The prosecution case as per First Information Report is that in the night of about 19/20.12.1995, uncle of the informant, Gyan Singh and his aunt, Smt. Urmila were sleeping in their baithak (drawing room) when at about 2.30-3.00 A.M., Gyan Singh heard some noise regarding presence of some persons outside his Baithak. He called from inside, who is there? On this his wife, Urmila, also awoked. An earthen lamp was burning inside the Baithak. Gyan Singh, opened the door to see who is outside when co-villagers, Amar Singh, Raghuraj Singh, Devendra Singh, sons of Ajab Singh; Ram Saran son of Mukut Singh; Kehri Singh son of Mantoo Singh and Rakesh Kumar son of Ramesh Singh Thakur, forced their way inside the Baithak and caught hold of Gyan Singh with common object and started assaulting him. On alarm being raised by the first informant and Gyan Singh, the villagers, Hari Om son of Vishambhar, Rajendra Singh son of Sobha Ram and many others came running, who saw the incident. In the meantime accused persons, after causing murder of Gyan Singh, ran towards the northern side. Informant and other witnesses saw the accused persons well in the light of earthen lamp and torches. Yesterday on 19.12.1995, the Bahu (daughter-in-law) of accused, Raghuraj Singh, was making cow dung cakes, when the deceased, Gyan Singh, was coming from his agricultural field. Daughter-in-law of Raghuraj Singh made complaint at her house that Gyan Singh was abusing her. On account of aforesaid incident all the accused persons caused the murder of Gyan Singh.
5. The case was committed by the C.J.M., Agra to the Sessions Court on 17.6.1996 for trial. The trial court charged the accused persons for committing the offence under section 302 I.P.C. They denied the charges and prayed for trial.
6. Before the trial court informant, Raj Kumar, was examined as P.W.1; eyewitness of the incident, Rajendra Singh was examined as P.W.2; Dr. Anoop Kumar, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased was examined as P.W.3, Head constable Harish Chandra, who proved the Chik First Information Report and entries in General Diary(G.D.) was examined as P.W.4; investigating officer of the case, M.P. Singh, was examined as P.W.5, Inspector Incharge, Hari Nath Sharma, who filed the charge sheet against accused and proved the same was examined as P.W.6.
7. P.W.1, Rajkumar deposed before the court that in the night of 19/20-12.1995 his uncle Gyan Singh and aunt, Urmila Devi, were lying in their baithak and an earthen lamp was burning on the window in the side of the baithak. At about 2:30-3:00 A.M. in the night presence of some persons outside the door was felt by his uncle, Gyan Singh, who waked up and called who is there? On his call his aunt, Urmila, also awoke. His uncle opened the latches of door of the baithak to see the persons outside and he found co-villagers, Raghuraj, Devendra Singh sons of Ajab Singh ; Ram Sharan son of Mukut, Rakesh son of Rajesh Singh standing near the door. All of th
Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel
Subal Ghorai and others Vs. State of West Bengal
Roy Fernandes Vs. State of Goa
Chikkarange Gowda & Ors. Vs. State of Mysore
Gajanand & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Mizaji and Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Shambhu Nath Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar
Gangadhar - Behera and Others Vs. State of Orissa
Bishna Alias Bhiswadeb Mahato and Others Vs. State of West Bengal
Haramant Laxmappa Kukkadi Vs. State of Karnataka
The State of U.P. and another Vs. Jaggo alias Jagdish and others
The prosecution must prove the formation of an unlawful assembly and the shared common object beyond reasonable doubt, and essential witnesses must be produced to unfold the narrative.
The prosecution must establish a common object for unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC; absence of motive and specific allegations can lead to acquittal.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on the established common object of the unlawful assembly, supported by credible witness testimonies and medical evidence.
The court established that in cases of unlawful assembly, all members can be held vicariously liable for the actions taken in furtherance of a common object, and that the prosecution's failure to exp....
Point of law : Object of the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is merely to ascertain whether a person died under suspicious circumstances or met with an unnatural death and, if so, what was its ....
Point of Law : Unlawful assembly – Common object - No doubt section 149 IPC is wide in its sweep but in fixing the membership of the unlawful assembly and in inferring the common object various circu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 149 IPC to determine the common object of the unlawful assembly and the vicarious liability of the accused, as well as t....
The evidence must establish a premeditated intent to commit murder and the existence of an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder to support a conviction for murder under Secti....
In cases of unlawful assembly leading to murder, all involved members can be held vicariously liable, and eyewitness testimonies must be credible even if witnesses are related to the victim.
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.