Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 913

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Arvind Singh Sangwan, Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, JJ.
Chandrapal And Others – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 4116 of 2015, Criminal Appeal No. - 3950 of 2015, Criminal Appeal No. - 4087 of 2015
Decided On : 30-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Amit Kumar Srivastava, Chandra Kant Bharadwaj, J.S. Baghel, Sikandar B. Kochar, V.P. Srivastava, Lav Srivastava, Brajesh Sahai, Pawan Bhardwaj, V.P. Srivastava, Sanjay Dixit, Brijesh Sahai, Pawan Bhardwaj
For the Respondent:Govt.Advocate, Ajay Panday, Vijay Tripathi, Govt.Advocate

The prosecution failed to establish the credibility of its key witness, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to insufficient evidence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 392 - Conviction of appellants for murder and related offences challenged - The trial court convicted the appellants based on the testimony of the informant, which was later found unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence. (Paras 1, 35, 43)

(B) Witness Credibility - The informant's testimony was deemed unreliable as he changed his account significantly after the incident, raising doubts about his presence at the crime scene. (Paras 43(a), 43(b))

(C) Evidence and Investigation - The prosecution failed to recover any weapons or corroborate the informant's claims with physical evidence, leading to the conclusion that the appellants were falsely implicated. (Paras 43(c), 43(d), 43(e))

Facts of the case:
The informant alleged that his brother was murdered by the appellants due to prior enmity. The incident occurred on 09.10.1989, and the informant's testimony was the primary evidence against the accused. (Paras 5, 35)

Findings of Court:
The court found the informant's testimony unreliable and noted significant lapses in the investigation, including the destruction of case property and lack of forensic evidence. (Paras 43, 49)

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the informant, the reliability of witness testimonies, and the adequacy of the investigation. (Paras 41, 42)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's case was built on unreliable witness testimony and insufficient evidence, leading to the acquittal of the accused. (Paras 43, 49)

Result: Appeals allowed; the appellants acquitted of all charges.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.

1. These appeals have been filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 03.08.2015, passed by Special Court (S.C./S.T. Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Bulandshahar holding the appellants Sanjay Dixit, Yogendra, Sanjay Kumar Sahni @ Sanjeev Kumar guilty of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 I.P.C., additionally accused Pramod Sharma and Chandra Pal were held guilty of offence under Section 147, 302/149 I.P.C. and accused Veerpal and Harpal were held guilty of offence under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 392 I.P.C. whereas one of the accused Mahendra Kumar Kaushik was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. as well as the order of sentence dated 04.08.2015 by which the appellants were held guilty of offence and awarded life imprisonment under Section 302/149 I.P.C. along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in the event of non-payment of fine, to further undergo six months additional simple imprisonment and under Section 147 I.P.C., two years rigorous imprisonment along with Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month additional simple imprisonment. Additional accused Sanjay Dixit, Yogendra, Sanjay Kumar Sahni and Harpal were sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs. 1500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 45 days simple imprisonment. Accused Harpal was additionally sentenced 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 392 I.P.C. along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. It was further directed that 50% of the fine recovered will be paid to the dependent of the deceased under Section 357 (1)(C) of Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Sri Bankim Kulshrestha, assisted by Sri Chandra Kant Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the appellant No.2, Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant No.4, Sri Vijay Tripathi and Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant (in Criminal Appeal No.4116 of 2015), Sri Kumar Parikshit, learned counsel for the appellant (in Criminal Appeal No.3950 of 2015), Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rahul Kumar, Sri Bhavya Sahai, Sri Pawan Bhardwaj and Sri Abhey Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant (in Criminal Appeal No.4087 of 2015) and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

3. It is worth noticing that separate charges were framed under the aforesaid sections against Chandrapal, Mahendra Kumar Kaushik, Veerpal and Sanjay Sahni, Harpal and Yogendra on 11.09.2009, whereas charges were framed against Sanjay Dixit and Pramod Kumar on 16.01.2006. It is also worth noticing that as per the verification report submitted by the concerned C.J.M. Chandrapal accused died on 10.07.2022 whereas Sanjay Sahni died on 01.01.2016. The appeal of both these accused stands abated. It is also worth noticing that accused Chandrapal was granted bail on 30.10.2018, Sanjay Dixit and Harpal were granted bail on 24.10.2016 and Pramod Kumar was granted bail on 05.10.2016. The third bail application of Yogendra was dismissed on 27.04.2024 directing that the main appeal be listed for final arguments on 06.05.2024 and this is how arguments in the main and connected appeals have been heard.

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 FIR are as under: