Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, HON'BLE MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN IDRISI, JJ.
Ramesh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2004, Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2004
Decided On : 29-07-2024
MURDER - Conviction under IPC - Section 302 IPC, Section 34 IPC - The court discussed the provisions of Section 302 IPC, which pertains to punishment for murder, and Section 34 IPC, which addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. The court emphasized the necessity of establishing a clear connection between the accused and the crime, highlighting the importance of credible eyewitness testimony and the need for corroboration. The court ultimately found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the murder of Vijay Bahadur Singh, who was shot by Narendra Singh during a public event. The prosecution claimed that the accused had a motive stemming from prior enmity with the deceased. The incident occurred on December 7, 2001, and the FIR was lodged shortly after. The trial court convicted the accused based on eyewitness testimonies and circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found significant contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, including discrepancies regarding the presence of light at the crime scene and the sequence of events. The court noted that the evidence presented did not establish a clear and consistent narrative that could support the conviction of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: The primary issues included whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, the reliability of eyewitness testimonies, and the existence of a motive for the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the evidence of eyewitnesses, especially those related to the victim, must be scrutinized carefully. It emphasized that mere relationship does not discredit a witness's testimony, but inconsistencies and contradictions can undermine the prosecution's case. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a credible case against the accused.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the conviction and sentence of the accused were set aside, and they were acquitted of all charges. The court ordered the cancellation of their bail bonds and discharge of sureties.
JUDGMENT :
(Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi, J.)
1. We have heard Sri H.N. Singh, Advocate assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State in extenso and have been taken through the entire material on record.
2. The afore-captioned both appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 17.12.2003, passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, District Mau, in Sessions Trial No. 59 of 2002 (State Vs. Narendra Singh and others) convicting the accused/appellants Narendra Singh, u/s 302 I.P.C. and accused Dharmendra Singh and Ramesh Yadav, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced accused Narendra Singh for R.I. for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default clause and accused Dharmendra Singh and Ramesh Yadav, for life imprisonment, under Section 302 read with 34 with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with default clause. Both these appeals are pending since year 2004 since then about 20 years have lapsed. Therefore, for the sake of precision, brevity and convenience, both the appeals have been clubbed and heard together and are being decided by a common judgment and order.
3. Bereft of unnecessary details, prosecution case, as culled out from the first information report, is that on 07.12.2001 at about 21.15 hrs. the complainant-Ram Pukar Singh s/o Raj Kumar Singh r/o Village Mirzapur, police station ranipur District Mau, gave a tehrir (Ext Ka-1) at P.S. Ranipur, District Mau divulging therein that the house of Kapil Singh S/o Gorakh Singh is situate on the southern side of his house. A programme (Path) of Ramayan recital, was staged, on 7.12.2001 from 10 a.m. He and his younger brother-Vijay Bahadur Singh alias Aangnu had gone to listen Ramayan. In the evening at about 6.00 pm., his younger brother Vijay Bahadur Singh went to wash his hands and face at the hand-pipe (nal), installed at the door of Kapil Dev Singh. Seeing Vijay Bahadur alias Angnu alone at the hand pipe (nal), Narendra Singh s/o Shri Ram Singhasan Singh, Dharmendra Singh s/o Mangla Singh and Ramesh Yadav s/o Ramchandar Yadav, came from their houses and exhorted to kill him. Meanwhile, Narendra Singh fired at his younger brother by a country made pistol, the bullet hit him on the back of his head. Vijay Bahadur fell down on the hand-pipe (nal) and died at the spot. Vijay Bahadur had old enmity with these people and in past, had threatened to kill them. On hearing the sound of fire, he alongwith Panchanand Singh s/o of Rama Shanker Singh, and Shiv Murat Singh son of Chandra Bhusan, ran towards the hand-pipe (nal) and saw the accused persons running away from the spot, after killing Vijay Bahadur. They chased the miscreants, but they managed to run away.
4. On the basis of the abovestated scribe (Ext Ka-1) a Criminal Case Crime No. 275 of 2001 u/s 302 IPC against Narendra Singh, Dharmendra Singh and Ramesh Yadav was registered at P.S. Ranipur, District Mau. Entries of the same were drawn in Kaimi G.D. (Ext Ka-7) and also in Chik FIR (Ext Ka-3). Initially, the investigation was entrusted to S.I. Yogendar Nath Singh (Pw-3).
5. On F.I.R. being launched, the investigation was set into motion. The Investigation Officer recorded the statements of several witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. collected blood stained and simple soil and other material from the spot. prepared site plan, and after appointing the witnesses, inquest of the corpse of the deceased Vijay Bahadur Singh, was conducted on 07.12.2001, at about 21:15 p.m. He also prepared the inquest report. In the opinion of witnesses (panchan) the death of the deceased was the result of fire arm injury. However in order to confirm the exact cause of death, they suggested to carry out autopsy of the corpse of the deceased.
6. Consequentially I.O., prepared letter of request for postmortem to C.M.O., photos lash and other relevant and necessary papers and after wrapping the dead body in a cloth, sealed it, prepared sample of seal and sen
The judgment establishes that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when relying on eyewitness testimony, which must be consistent and credible to support a conv....
Interested witnesses, such as close relatives of the deceased, can provide credible testimony and their evidence should be carefully scrutinized but not automatically discarded. In cases of direct ev....
Point of law: So far as motive is concerned, it is well settled, where direct evidence is worthy to credence, can be believed, then motive does not carry much weight - That mind set of accused person....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and discrepancies in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.
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 ....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of scrutinizing the evidence provided by interested witnesses, establishing motive, and the need for corroborative evidence in criminal cases.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
