SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 1050

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A.G.A., Brij Mohan Singh, Gaurav Khare, Mahesh Kumar Kuntal, Rashtrapati Khare, S.C.Saxena
For the Respondent: S.V. Goswami, A.K. Verma, Ajatshatru Pandey, B. P.Verma, Chandra Kumar Singh, Lalit Kumar Shukla, Rahul Chaudhary, Rajeev Goswami, S.R. Verma

The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; in cases of doubt, the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 307, 302, 149 - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25(1)(a), 25(1)(b) - Acquittal of accused in murder case - The trial court acquitted all accused due to insufficient evidence, leading to a government appeal against the acquittal - The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, with significant contradictions in witness testimonies and medical evidence. (Paras 25, 50, 53)

(B) Appeal against acquittal - The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only overturn an acquittal if the trial court's findings are manifestly erroneous or unsustainable. (Paras 28, 29)

Facts of the case:
The case involved the murder of Kanni, with allegations against twelve accused who were acquitted by the trial court due to lack of credible evidence. The prosecution's case relied on eyewitness accounts and medical reports, which were found inconsistent. (Paras 1-4, 25)

Findings of Court:
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, finding no manifest error in its judgment, and emphasized the need for credible evidence in criminal cases. (Paras 54)

Issues: The main issues were whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused and whether the prosecution established the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 25, 50)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and in cases of doubt, the benefit must be given to the accused. (Paras 28, 53)

Result: Government appeal dismissed, trial court's acquittal upheld.

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:

    “(i) Written Report dated 14.10.1987, Ex. Ka-1

    (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

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top