IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, JJ.
Subedar - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2798 of 1988
Decided On : 30-05-2024
MURDER - CONVICTION UNDER IPC - Section 302, 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 interpreted these sections to establish that both accused acted with a premeditated intention to kill, with one using a firearm and the other using a blunt weapon, thus justifying the conviction under these sections.
JUDGMENT :
(Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.) :
1. Present appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 3.12.1988 vide which accused-Subedar and Buddhu were convicted for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and the order of sentence dated 5.12.1988, vide which they were sentenced to life imprisonment.
2. It is worth noticing that this Court vide judgment dated 6.4.2017 dismissed the appeal of appellant-Subedar noticing that appellant-Buddhu had died somewhere in the year 1999 and no one represented appellant-Subedar. The appeal was heard without affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Thereafter, appellant-Subedar filed SLP (Criminal ) No.6684 of 2020 which was later on converted into Criminal Appeal No.886 of 2020 in which, noticing the fact that the appellant was not afforded opportunity, the case was remanded back to this Court by the Supreme Court with a direction to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.
3. Heard Sri Shravan Kumar Yadav, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
4. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, the entire evidence is re-scrutinized and re-appreciated.
5. The facts as stated by the informant in the complaint given on 4.4.1987 are as under:
6. On the basis this complaint, Chik F.I.R. was registered by Head Moharrir-Israr Ali at Case Crime No.80, under Section 307 IPC at Police Station- Aonla, District-Bareilly on 04.04.1987 at 04.30 A.M. The chik report is Ex.Ka.7. On the basis of chik report, a case was registered at G.D. No.3 on 04.04.1987 against the accused. Copy of GD entry is Exhibit Ka-8.
7. The case was initially registered under Section 307 I.P.C. The injured was sent to Primary Health Centre at Aonla for treatment and medical examination. Dr. Raj Kumar P.W.4 M.O. examined the injuries of Vedpal Singh on 4.4.1987 at 5.45 A.M. and prepared his injury Ex.Ka.4 The doctor found the following injuries on the person of the injured:-
2. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.1 cm x muscle deep left side forehead 5 cm above left eyebrow.
3. Contusion 1 cm x 1 cm on right side skull 6 cm above right ear.
4. No any other visible injury seen but only complaint of pain all over the body.
8. In the opinion of the doctor, Injury no.1, could be caused by firearm, was kept under observation. X-ray was advised. The injury nos.2 and 3 were simple and could be caused by blunt weapon.
9. The injured Vedpal Singh was referred to District Hospital, Bareilly for conducting x-ray of his injury no.1 and further treatment where Dr. S.P. Singh M.O. District Hospital, Bareilly P.W.6 attended to him. But in the meantime, Vedpal Singh succumbed to his injuries on 4.4.1987 at 8.45 A.M. in the District Hospital, Bareilly.
10. The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. S.P. Singh P.W.6 vide postmortem report Ex.Ka.6 The Doctor found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased:-
2. Three abrasions in an area of 8 cm x 6 cm on the back of left shoulder joint upper part.
3. Abrasion 3 cm x ½ cm on the top of the right shoulder joint.
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and doubt in evidence lead to acquittal.
The consistent and trustworthy testimonies of eyewitnesses, supported by medical evidence, are crucial in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a murder case.
The court emphasized the credibility of dying declarations as substantive evidence, modifying convictions based on the established intent and involvement of the accused in the crime.
Assault and Murder – Conviction confirmed - Sketch-map would be admissible so far as it indicates all that Sub-Inspector saw himself at the spot; but any mark put on sketch-map based on statements ma....
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.