IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, VINOD DIWAKAR, JJ.
Jagdish And Others – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 802 of 1982
Decided on : 15-05-2024
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER AND ATTEMPTED MURDER - IPC SECTIONS 302, 307, 323, 34 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 302 (punishment for murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. The court interpreted these sections in the context of the evidence presented, particularly focusing on the credibility of eyewitness testimonies and the necessity of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused due to inconsistencies in witness statements and lack of corroborative evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The incident occurred on the night of July 19-20, 1980, when Radhika Devi and her husband Buchnoo Tiwari were attacked by four assailants, resulting in Buchnoo's death. Radhika lodged an FIR implicating Jagdish, Ram Achal, and Vishdhar, citing a motive related to ongoing land disputes. The prosecution presented ten witnesses, including Radhika, who testified about the attack and identified the assailants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found significant discrepancies in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, particularly regarding the circumstances of the incident, such as the presence of excreta and the weather conditions. The court noted that the testimonies of Radhika and other witnesses were not credible, leading to reasonable doubt about the accused's involvement.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the credibility of eyewitness accounts, the presence of motive, and whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a conviction cannot be based on doubt and that the prosecution must provide clear and convincing evidence. The inconsistencies in witness statements and the lack of independent corroboration led to the conclusion that the accused could not be held guilty under the charges.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge was set aside, and the accused were acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT :
Vinod Diwakar, J.
1. Upon an incident, having taken place in the intervening night of 19th and 20th July 1980, a First Information Report was lodged on 20.7.1980. Ram Jiyawan Tripathi scribed the tehrir on the dictation of the first informant, Radhika Devi. In the F.I.R. it was stated that on the previous night, while the first informant and her husband Buchnoo Tiwari were sleeping in the Veranda of their house in village Dulahi, Police Station Khesraha, District Basti, after having their dinner etc., at around 12 mid-night because of the call of nature, the younger daughter, who was sleeping with the first informant, woke up. The complainant was trying to ease the child, and at that moment, four persons reached the place of the incident with country-made pistols and lathies. When the first informant asked them not to come near her and her husband then, the assailant, Jagdish, son of Ram Dulare, who was having country-made pistol in this hand, fired on the husband of the first informant. Thereafter, the first informant, caught hold of Jagdish. Thereupon, Jagdish exhorted his friends to kill the husband of the first informant. Upon this exhortation, Vishdhar alias Shridhar, son of Shiv Moorat, fired a second shot at the husband of the first informant and Ram Achal, son of Mitthoo, who also accompanied them, pushed the first informant aside. As a result, the first informant fell. Also, Jagdish slapped her. When all this was happening, the first informant raised a hue and cry and, therefore, Ram Jiyawan Tiwari, son of Munnu Tripathi, Bhagwan Dutt son of Mannar and a lot of persons of the village with lanterns and torch came to the house of the first informant. The crowd that had collected at the house of the first informant tried to chase the accused persons but they ran away. However, because of the firearm injuries, the husband of the first informant died. She mentioned Jagdish and Ram Achal’s motives in the first information report. Because of certain litigation with regard to her land, the husband, i.e., the deceased, who was doing pairvy in the cases, was killed. She stated in the first information report that the dead-body of her husband was lying in the house itself and while she had gone to lodge the first information report, the injured daughter Poonam was with her devar.
2. The lodging of the first information report had set into motion the investigating agencies and they recovered the torches of the witnesses Bhagwan Dutt Tiwari and Narad Tiwari and took them into custody. Also, the mud where the blood was found, was taken into custody. The lantern and cot were also taken into custody. When the search was made in the house of the accused, no firearm etc. was recovered. The injury report and post mortem report were also prepared. Upon the charge-sheet having been submitted, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Basti, on 03.12.1980 framed charges against Jagdish, Ram Achal and Vishdhar @ Sridhar under Sections 323, 302, 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The trial commenced when the accused persons denied the charges and prayed for trial.
3. From the side of the prosecution as many as ten witnesses were produced and examined.
4. PW-1-Radhika Devi, the first informant, proved the first information report and gave her side of the story. She has stated in her testimony that Buchnoo Tiwari (deceased) was her husband. Vansh Gopal was her father, and she was the only daughter of her father. When she was one and half years of age then her mother died. She further stated that her father, Vansh Gopal, had never remarried, and when she grew up, her father married her. At the time of marriage, he had given her ten bighas of agricultural land and when Vansh Gopal died, all the agricultural land and the properties were inherited by her. She stated that Vishdhar was Jagdish’s brother-in-law (sala), and Ram Achal was Jagdish’s agriculture labourer (someone who helped in agriculture work). She stated that someone had impersonat
A conviction in a criminal case requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can create reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal.
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in testimonies undermine the case.
The burden of proof on the accused to explain incriminating circumstances and the importance of evidence such as the source of light and recovery of items in establishing guilt.
The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, relying primarily on credible eyewitness testimony and corroborative forensic evidence, particularly in murder convictions.
A witness's credibility must withstand scrutiny; inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts can undermine the prosecution's case to the point of reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable evidence and the necessity of proper identification of the accused in criminal cases.
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.