IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, JJ.
Vinod Kumar And Another – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 826 Of 1986
Decided On : 24-01-2024
Murder - Criminal Appeal - Section 302 IPC, Section 302/34 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence presented, including the First Information Report, witness statements, and discrepancies in the panchayatnama. The court found that the presence of the first informant at the scene was doubtful, and the lack of identification of the accused rendered the evidence worthless. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
Fact of the Case:
Virendra Kumar was shot dead on 2nd December, 1979. The first informant, Girish Kumar, alleged that the accused, Vinod Kumar and Narayan, were involved in the murder. However, discrepancies in witness statements and the panchayatnama raised doubts about the presence of the first informant at the scene and the identification of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented was unreliable, and the lack of identification of the accused rendered the evidence worthless. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant Vinod Kumar was acquitted of all charges.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the reliability of the evidence, the presence of the first informant at the scene, and the lack of identification of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the unreliability of the evidence, discrepancies in witness statements, and the lack of identification of the accused, which rendered the evidence worthless.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant Vinod Kumar was acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT :
1. Written Arguments submitted by learned counsel for the appellant be kept on record.
2. When on 2nd December, 1979, Virendra Kumar was shot dead, a First Information Report allegedly was got lodged on 02.12.1979 at 02:30 pm. The first informant was one Girish Kumar, the son of the deceased. In the First Information Report, it has been stated that the first informant was belonging to Mauja - Gandhaur P.S. - Chandpur, District - Bijnor. He has stated that in the year 1977 when the elder brother of his father one Sri Bhupendra Kumar was killed by Radheyshyam etc. then there were a case contested by Radhyshyam in which he was acquitted. Thereafter in the year 1978, Radheshyam himself was killed. For the murder of Radheyshyam, Virendra Kumar, the father of the First Informant, Harendra Kumar, Atul, Surendra Kumar and Dushyant, were named as accused and ever since then Radheyshaym’s brother Vinod Kumar and others were inimical to Virendra Kumar the father of the First Informant and they were always in the look out for taking revenge of the death of Radheyshaym. He has stated in the First Information Report that around 15 days prior to the incident, Narayan @ Madan resident of Meerapur, District – Muzaffarnagar and the Pradhan of the village Om Prakash had contacted the father of the first informant and had stated that the date in the case of the murder of Radheyshaym was approaching and insisted that a compromise could be entered into between the parties. The first informant specifically took the name of Vinod Kumar and said that the compromise could be entered into between Virendra Kumar and Vinod Kumar who was the brother of Radhey Shyam. It has further been stated that Vinod was a teacher in Shiv Inter College, Gajraula. Still further, it has been stated that Om Prakash had taken the first informant to Gajraula for a meeting with Vinod Kumar. There, he could not meet Vinod Kumar. Later Narayan and Om Prakash told him that on 2.12.1979 it was Sunday and they had to bring Virendra and, thereafter, a compromise could be entered into and, their matter with regard to the murder case vis-a-vis Radheyshyam would be settled between the parties. When Girish, the first informant, told these happenings to his father Virendra, he did not agree with Girish and said that now the date with regard to the case of the murder of Radhey Shyam was approaching and that he was also busy with the business of crushing and therefore no meetng could take place. Thereafter, it has further been stated that on 2.12.1979 despite the fact that the father of first informant had not agreed to meet Vinod etc. for the purpose of conciliation, Om Prakash and Narayan reached the house of Virendra and he was taken from Gajraula to meet Vinod Kumar. The first informant has further stated that along with Om Prakash and Narayan, the first informant had also gone to meet Vinod. He has stated that along with Om Prakash and Narayan, Som Prakash son of Radhey Shyam residents of Bareilly and Subhash son of Roop Kishore resident of Bijnor had headed for Gajraula. Narayan had asked the first informant and all the other persons who had accompanied him to Gajraula to sit at the Almora Hotel, station road, Gajraula and, thereafter, he went away to call Vinod. It has been stated that while these persons were having tea, from the northern side, at around 2:00pm, Vinod armed with a gun and Narayan armed with a country made pistol approached the five of them, namely, Virendra, Girish, Om Prakash, Som Prakash and Subash.
3. Om Prakash instigated Vinod to kill Virendra and, thereafter, both of them i.e. Narayan and Vinod fired at Virendra, the father of the first informant, who fell down. Vinod and Narayan, thereafter ran away from the spot, but despite the fact that they were followed, they could not be apprehended. Upon unsuccessfully having tried to catch hold of the assailants, the first informant returned to the spot and over there he found that Om Prakash had also disapp
Rabindra Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa
Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat, (1964) 7 SCR 361 at pp. 368, 369
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable evidence and the necessity of proper identification of the accused in criminal cases.
The testimonies of related witnesses must be scrutinized carefully, especially when inconsistencies exist and the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Point of Law : While appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, may not prompt the court to reject the evide....
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on credible eyewitness testimony and a reliable dying declaration, emphasizing the established motive of caste rivalry.
Interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable and should be scrutinized with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being partisan. Minor discrepancies and contradictions should not ....
Discrepancies in eyewitness accounts undermined the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to reasonable doubt of their involvement in the crime.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; significant contradictions and procedural irregularities in the FIR undermine the conviction.
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.