Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Vikas Budhwar, JJ.
Hakim – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 6632 of 2019, Criminal Appeal No. - 6501 of 2019, Criminal Appeal No. - 3104 of 2021, Jail Appeal No. - 151 of 2019
Decided On : 24-10-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 - Conviction under these sections was challenged in appeals against the judgment dated 25.07.2019 - The prosecution alleged that the appellants committed murder while hiding behind mustard crops - The FIR was found to be anti-timed and unreliable due to contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence - The court emphasized the importance of prompt FIR lodging to avoid embellishment and false implications - The appellants were acquitted due to insufficient evidence. (Paras 1-47)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were accused of murdering Suresh Chandra on 06.01.2013 while he was in an agricultural field. The prosecution's case relied on eyewitness accounts from Bacchu Singh and Vikram, who claimed to have witnessed the incident from a distance of 20-30 steps. However, their testimonies were inconsistent and raised doubts about their presence at the scene. (Paras 3-5)
Findings of Court:
The court found the prosecution's case lacking credibility due to contradictions in witness statements, the anti-timed FIR, and the absence of corroborative evidence. The trial court's conviction was deemed unsafe. (Paras 46-47)
Issues: The main issues included the reliability of the FIR, the credibility of eyewitness accounts, and whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. (Paras 26-30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the FIR's delayed lodging and contradictions in witness testimonies undermined the prosecution's case, leading to the conclusion that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt. (Paras 46-47)
Result: Appeals allowed; the appellants were acquitted of all charges. (Para 47)
JUDGMENT :
Vikas Budhwar, J.
1. As these four appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 25.07.2019 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Mathura, they are being heard together and are being decided by a composite order.
2. Criminal Appeal Nos. 6632 of 2019, 6501/2019 and 3104 of 2019 and Jail Appeal No.151 of 2019 are against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2019 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Mathura in Sessions Trial nos. 803/2013 and 344/2014, by which the appellants have been convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC awarding imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-and a default sentence of one year three months.
FACTS
3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 06.01.2013, Bacchu Singh (PW-1) lodged a First Information Report in the Police Station-Refinery, Mathura against the appellants and one Ravi son of Kishani alleging that on 06.01.2013, when his brother Suresh Chandra had gone in the morning hours to answer the nature’s call, he was followed by the PW-1 Bacchu Singh, brother of the deceased, Vikram (PW-2) son of the deceased and Lauki, the father of the deceased and when the deceased reached the agricultural field, where mustard (sarson) was sown, then with the pre-determined mind the accused Hakim Singh son of Girraj (A-1), Lauki son of Girraj (A-2), Ajay @ Ajju son of Pooran (A-3), Kishani son of Patiram @ Patti (A-4), Hakim son of Niranjan Singh (A-5) and Ravi son of Kishani (A-6) and who were hiding behind the mustard crop at 08:30 in the morning resorted to gun-shot firing and also by using Farsa and knife, they inflicted injuries on account whereof Suresh Chandra (deceased) succumbed to the injuries and died. The case was registered by the police as Case Crime no.6 of 2013, under Sections 147, 148, 149 IPC read with Section 302 IPC.
4. Post lodging of the FIR, the Investigating Officer was appointed, inquest report was prepared, post mortem was done and after investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 under Section 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC on 12.04.2013. However, it has been reported that after filing of the Crimial Appeal No.5907 of 2019, Kishani (A-4) has died. With respect to accused A-5 Kishani, he was found to be juvenile. After taking cognizance of the charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 18.05.2013, 29.11.2013 and 04.04.2014 and the charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.
5. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses, namely Bacchu Singh (informant-PW-1), Vikram (PW-2, witness of fact), Bare Lal (PW3) author of the inquest, Dr. K.K. Gupta (PW-4), witness, who conducted post mortem, Surendra Singh, Head Moharrir (PW-5), who lodged the FIR and Ram Kishan Yadav (PW-6), first Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation for the period from 06.01.2013 to 08.01.2013 and Ashok Kumar (PW-7), second Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation from 12.01.2013 till the submission of charge sheet. Bhagwan Singh son of Lacchi Ram also stepped into the witness box as Defence Witness (DW-1). After prosecution evidence was closed, the Trial Court recorded the statement of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC.
6. All the appellants denied the allegations leveled against them, and stated that they were falsely implicated in the said criminal case. The Trial Court found them guilty and sentenced them under Section 147, 148, 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.
SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS
7. Sri Araf Khan, learned counsel for the appellants has sought to argue that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the criminal case, as they are innocent. Elaborating the said submission, it is submitted that even if the prosecution theory is taken to its face-value, then too the appellants cannot be said to be either present at the place of the incident and further the presence
The court emphasized that an anti-timed FIR and inconsistent witness testimonies undermine the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; significant contradictions and procedural irregularities in the FIR undermine the conviction.
Interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable and should be scrutinized with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being partisan. Minor discrepancies and contradictions should not ....
Point of Law : The appellant shall be released from jail forthwith, unless wanted in any other case, subject to compliance of the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the trial c....
Point of Law : While appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, may not prompt the court to reject the evide....
As the medical evidence does not support the manner of assault on the victim. It also lends support to the defence case, such a wound could not be possible looking to the position of the victim & per....
Prosecution must be proven beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in witness testimonies and an ante-timed FIR raise significant doubts undermining the overall credibility of the prosecution case.
The judgment underscores the principle that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when eyewitness testimony is contradicted and evidence is lacking.
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
