Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Arvind Singh Sangwan, Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, JJ.
Vinay Kumar Jaiswal - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1995 of 2012
Decided On : 10-04-2024
Criminal - Murder - IPC Sections 302, 307, 506; Arms Act Section 3/25 - The court upheld the conviction based on eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime, emphasizing the motive and the nature of the injuries inflicted.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for murdering his brother and injuring their mother during a family dispute over property. The incident occurred when the appellant shot the deceased and his mother, leading to their hospitalization and subsequent death of the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the eyewitness accounts credible, despite defense claims of their absence at the scene. The forensic evidence corroborated the use of the weapon recovered from the appellant, establishing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the eyewitnesses were present at the scene and whether the recovery of the weapon was valid and linked to the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presence of eyewitnesses was established, and the forensic evidence confirmed the weapon's use in the crime, supporting the conviction.
Result: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
JUDGMENT :
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
The present appeal arises out of judgment of conviction dated 16.5.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Maharajganj in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 2010 holding appellant-Vinay Kumar Jaiswal guilty of offence under Section 302, 307 and 506 of IPC read with Section 3/25 of Arms Act. vide order of sentence dated 17.5.2012, the accused-appellant was awarded imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Under Section 307 IPC, he was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-, under Section 506 of IPC, imprisonment for two years and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, the appellant was sentenced to one year imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-. It was directed that in case of default in payment of fine, the appellant would further undergo imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. It is worth noticing that the Supreme Court of India vide order dated 16.12.2022 had directed the High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously. Paper book is complete and trial Court's record has been received.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State have addressed their respective arguments and with their assistance, the entire evidence is re-scrutinized and re-appriciated.
4. As per the prosecution, informant-Sarita Jaiswal, PW-1 (wife of deceased-Dileep Kumar Jaiswal), gave a complaint (Ex.Ka-1) that her husband runs a saw mill which is in the name of her mother-in-law, Smt. Durgawati Devi. Her mother-in-law is residing with her husband. The elder brother of her husband, appellant-Vinay Kumar Jaiswal, had separated after the death of their father and used to demand money from her husband. On 7.5.2009, at about 5.30 in the morning, the appellant fired on the head of his brother (deceased-Dileep Kumar Jaiswal) and when his mother-Durgawati Devi tried to intervene, the appellant also fired upon her which hit her on chest and by abusing and threatening, he ran away from the spot. The informant and other brother of her husband namely Ashok alias Raju Jaiswal and other family members took the injured to Medical College, Gorakhpur, where Dileep Kumar Jaiswal died and Durgawati was admitted. On receiving the information, the formal F.I.R. was registered.
5. During the course of investigation, the police recovered the weapon of offence from the appellant alongwith live cartridges. From the spot, bloodstained earth was also recovered and a bullet was recovered from the head of the deceased during the post-mortem which was also taken into possession by the police. The cartridges both empty and live were sent to F.S.L. for examination. Thereafter, charge-sheet was presented before the Trial Court and charges under Section 307, 302, 504 and 506 of IPC read with Section 3/25/27 of the Arms Act were framed.
6. The appellant did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
7. In prosecution evidence, the informant (PW-1) reiterated her version. It was stated by her that her husband, Late Dileep Kumar Jaiswal, were four brothers. The eldest is Ashok alias Raju Jaiswal, younger to him is Vinay Jaiswal (accused-appellant), at number three was her husband (deceased Dileep) and the youngest is Pradeep Kumar alias Chhotu. She further stated that after the death of her father-in-law namely Shiv Kumar Jaiswal, her husband separated from his two brothers, Ashok alias Raju and Vinay Kumar Jaiswal who had got their share separated and started their separate business. It was further stated that her mother-in-law and youngest brother of her husband, Pradeep alias Chhotu were staying with her husband and they were working on saw mill which was in the name of her mother-in-law and this property was not divided. She further stated that accused-Vinay Kumar had taken Rs. 5,00,000/- from her husband and spent this amount on bad habits.
8. On 7.5.2009, when she was getting ready to go to her parental home and her husband was sleeping
The judgment reinforces the principle that credible eyewitness testimony, supported by forensic evidence, can establish guilt in serious criminal offenses.
Point of Law : Conviction on the basis of statements of two police officials alone is not sustainable.
Conviction under IPC Section 302 and Arms Act Section 25 upheld due to credible direct witness testimony and supporting evidence, despite challenges to forensic integrity.
In a case of circumstantial evidence, the absence of motive is not always fatal to the prosecution case.
Merely, because they have not been examined is not a ground to disbelieve an otherwise credible ocular account rendered by a person injured in the incident whose presence, otherwise also, is natural ....
It is also well settled that if other evidence on record clearly establishes that the deceased was murdered by a person, then the factum of motive loses its importance.
The refusal of the accused to undergo TIP, the recovery of the weapon of offence, and the consistent testimony of eyewitnesses can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on uncorroborated witness testimony, especially from related parties, is insufficient for conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible eyewitness testimony, which was corroborated by medical evidence and surrounding circumstances, to prove the guilt of the ....
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
