Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, VINOD DIWAKAR, JJ.
Ved Prakash And Others – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.261 of 1982
Decided on : 27-05-2024
MURDER - Homicide and Juvenile Justice - Sections 302, 34 IPC; Section 27 of the Evidence Act; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - The court discussed the applicability of Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC in establishing the culpability of the accused in a murder case, emphasizing the need for a shared intention among co-accused. The court also interpreted Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of confessions and recoveries. The Juvenile Justice Act was pivotal in determining the treatment of the juvenile accused, leading to a modified sentence based on his age at the time of the crime.
Fact of the Case:
Shyam Singh was murdered on 18.4.1981, allegedly by his brother Balveer Singh and his sons due to a will favoring Shyam's daughters. The first information report detailed the involvement of multiple accused armed with weapons. The prosecution presented several witnesses, including the deceased's wife, who provided a direct eyewitness account of the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the eyewitness testimony of the deceased's wife credible despite minor discrepancies. The court concluded that the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the conviction of the accused Chandra Prakash, Ved Prakash, and Rajesh alias Raju under Sections 302/34 IPC, while acquitting others due to lack of evidence against them.
Issues: Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the accused under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, and whether the juvenile accused was properly tried given his age at the time of the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a reliable eyewitness account can suffice for conviction, and the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act must be applied to a juvenile offender, modifying the sentence accordingly. The court emphasized that the presence of a juvenile in a trial with adults must adhere to specific legal standards.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed regarding the conviction of Rajesh alias Raju, but his sentence was modified to a fine of Rs. 20,000, considering his juvenile status at the time of the crime. The appeal against the other deceased appellants was abated.
JUDGMENT :
1. Upon an incident having taken place on 18.4.1981 whereby Shyam Singh had died, a first information report was got lodged by his wife – Kailashpati. The first information report had stated that the brother of Shyam Singh, namely, Balveer Singh accompanied by his four sons, namely, Vijayvir Singh alias Vijay, Ved Prakash, Chandra Prakash alias Pappu and Rajesh alias Raju and the brother-in-law of Balveer, namely, Surendra (sala) had reached the house of the deceased. The motive assigned in the first information report was that the deceased Shyam Singh had executed a Will in favour of his three daughters and, therefore, the accused Balveer Singh and his four sons wanted to do away with him. In the first information report, it was very categorically stated that the four sons of Balveer Singh and his brother-in-law were armed with lathis and swords. Specifically, it has been stated that Chandra Prakash, Rajesh alias Raju, Ved Prakash had swords whereas Balveer Singh and Surendra had lathis in their hands. At the time of the incident, another brother of the deceased, namely, Kripal Singh had reached the spot. Apart from the brother, Dharmveer Singh son of Chiranjeet Chauhan and Bhagwana Singh son of Kathera Singh had also reached at the place of incident. The first information report states that not only there were three eye-witnesses present but many others of the area had also reached the spot. The first informant in the first information report had stated that the first information report was written on the dictation of the first informant by her daughter – Vimla.
2. After the lodging of the first information report, the Police got into action and various relevant materials found on the spot were recovered and kept in Police custody. The accused Chandra Prakash, it was alleged, had also made a confessional statement before the Police on 18.4.1981 itself and had also under Section 27 of the Evidence Act got recovered the sword as was used in the incident. The sword was recovered in the presence of two eye-witnesses, namely, Ram Singh and Ashok Kumar Tyagi.
3. Upon completion of the investigation, the Police submitted its charge sheet and the court of sessions, thereafter, on 3.8.1981 framed charges against the accused Shyam Singh, Chandra Prakash alias Pappu, Ved Prakash, Balveer Singh, Rajesh alias Raja and Surendra Singh.
4. When the trial commenced, from the side of the prosecution 7 prosecution witnesses were produced and examined.
5. Upon the conclusion of the Trial, the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor, convicted the accused, namely, Chandra Prakash alias Pappu, Ved Prakash and Rajesh alias Raju for the offences under Sections 302/34 IPC and they were thereafter sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for life. By the same order, Surendra Singh, Vijayvir Singh and Balveer Singh were acquitted. Thereafter, the instant Criminal Appeal was filed challenging the judgment and order dated 27.1.1982 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor.
6. The P.W. -1 who was the doctor who had conducted the postmortem proved the port-mortem report and categorically mentioned as to how the injuries which had resulted in the death of the deceased had been inflicted on the body of the deceased.
7. The P.W. -2 is the wife of the deceased and she is an eye-witness of the incident and she gives the entire eye-witness account saying that the deceased – Shyam Singh and she herself were sleeping in the veranda of their house and a functional lantern was there in the veranda. She had also stated that in the eastern side of the veranda, her brother-in-law (dewar), namely, Kripal Singh was also sleeping. She has stated that Balveer Singh, the accused, was her brother-in-law (dewar) and Vijay, Ved Prakash, Chandra Prakash and Rajesh were his sons and Surendra was the brother-in-law (sala) of Balveer Singh. She recognized all the six accused who were present in the court. She thereafter, in her testimony, gives the reason for the murd
The judgment established that the reliability of eyewitness testimony is crucial for conviction in homicide cases, and the legal framework for juvenile offenders necessitates special consideration in....
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on direct evidence, while recognizing the juvenile status of one appellant, leading to a modified sentence under juvenile law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and contradictions and doubts in the evidence can lead to the f....
The judgment establishes that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of a dying declaration without corroborative evidence, especially when there are significant inconsistencies in witn....
Point of Law : A wife, who has seen an assailant giving fatal blows with a stick to her husband, would name the assailant to all present and to the police at an earliest opportunity.
The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, relying primarily on credible eyewitness testimony and corroborative forensic evidence, particularly in murder convictions.
The testimonies of related witnesses must be scrutinized carefully, especially when inconsistencies exist and the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on credible eyewitness testimony and a reliable dying declaration, emphasizing the established motive of caste rivalry.
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
