IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Siddharth, Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, JJ.
State of Uttar Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Karan Singh And Others – Respondents
Government Appeal No. 31 of 1991
Decided On : 10-07-2024
JUDGMENT :
Hon’ble Vinod Diwakar, J.
1. We have heard Ms. Puruhuta Lodha, Shri Vijay and Shri Prem Shanker Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State-appellant, Shri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ajatshatru Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the record.
2. The instant Government Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.9.1990 passed by learned Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura in Sessions Trial No.225 of 1998, titled as State v. Karan Singh and others, arising out of Case Crime No.276 of 1987, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC; and Sessions Trial No.226 of 1988 titled as State v. Kunwar Singh and others, arising out of Case Crime Nos.277 of 1987, 278 of 1987 & 279 of 1987, under Sections 25 & 4/25 of Arms Act respectively, both the cases registered at Police Station Kosi Kalan, District Mathura, in which the accused, namely, Karan Singh, Har Gulab, Padam Singh, Fateh Singh, Kunwar Singh and Lakhmi Singh have been acquitted from the charges of Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC, whereas the accused, namely, Tara Chand, Virendra Singh, Mahendra Singh, Teji, Shiv Singh and Lal Singh have been acquitted from the charges framed under Sections 147, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC, and further the accused Lakhmi Singh, Fateh Singh and Kunwar Singh have been acquitted from the charge framed under Section 25 Arms Act.
3. Aggrieved by the acquittal of all the 12 accused, namely, Karan Singh, Har Gulab, Padam Singh, Fateh Singh, Kunwar Singh, Lakhmi Singh, Tara Chand, Virendra Singh, Mahendra Singh, Teji, Shiv Singh and Lal Singh, the State-appellant has preferred the instant appeal challenging the order of acquittal qua the aforesaid accused persons.
4. During the pendency of the appeal, the accused, namely, Karan Singh, Tara Chand, Teji @ Tej Singh, Lachhi @ Lakhmi, and Lal Singh died. Hence, the instant Government Appeal against them stands abated.
5. Succinctly, the prosecution case is that the complainant- Hudri approached the Police Station Kosi Kalan with a tehreer with regard to his brother’s murder. On the basis of which the police initiated the investigation and subsequently the accused persons faced the trial. For clarity, the contents of tehreer are extracted herein below:
6. On the tehreer of complainant- Hudri (PW-1), the First Information Report bearing Case Crime no. 276, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC and FIR No. 277 and 278, u/s Section 25(1) (a) and 25(1)(b) of Arms Act was registered on 14.10.1987 at P.S. Kosi Kalan, District Mathura, against the accused persons.
7. After registration of the FIRs, the police conducted the investigation and recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and filed the charge-sheet against all the 12 accused persons named in the F.I.R. viz (i) Karan Singh, (ii) Har Gulab, (iii) Padam Singh, (iv) Fateh Singh, (v) Kunwar Singh, (vi) Lakshmi, (vii) Tara Chand, (viii) Virendra Singh, (ix) Mahendra Singh, (x) Teji, (xi) Shiv Singh, (xii) Lal Singh. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took the cognizance and after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the court of sessions for its trial.
8. The trial court framed the charges under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 147, 148 IPC against all twelve accused persons and separate charges were framed under section Section 25(1)(a) and Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act against accused Fateh Singh and Kunwar Singh, the same were read over and explained to the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
9. The prosecution has produced the following documentary evidence to prove its case:
(ii) FIR dated 14.10.1987 at 10:15 a.m., Ex. Ka-13 and FIR dated 14.10.1987 at 11:00 p.m., Ex. Ka-2
(iii) Recovery memo of Axe ‘Ahni’, Bamboo & Farsa, Ex. Ka-16
(iv) Recovery memo of blood-stained and plain earth, Ex. Ka-17 and Ex. Ka-18
(v) Recovery memo
Basheera Begam v. Mohd. Ibrahim
Laxman Singh & Ors v. State of Bihar (2021) 9 SCC 191
Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat
Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P.
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra
State of M.P. v. Man Singh and ors.
State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra & Ors.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; in cases of doubt, the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused.
The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
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....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; if evidence allows for two reasonable conclusions, the one favoring the accused prevails.
Acquittal of the accused is upheld as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal cases.
The appellate court upheld the acquittal of the accused due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of credible evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
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.