Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 1303

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MAYANK KUMAR JAIN, ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Veda alias Vedpal – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.4672 of 2007
Decided on : 16-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sri P C Srivastava, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tyagi assisted by Sri Ankit Tyagi, Ms Kanchan Chaudhary
For the Respondent: Sri Vikas Goswami, AGA

IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution failed to establish the identification of the appellants and the motive for the murders, leading to their acquittal.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 302 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25 - Conviction of six appellants for murder and conspiracy - Acquittal of three accused - Prosecution failed to establish identification of appellants due to lack of sufficient light and unreliability of eyewitnesses - Recovery of firearms not substantiated by forensic evidence - Motive for murder not convincingly established - Appeals allowed, convictions set aside. (Paras 124, 125)
Facts of the case:
Four individuals were murdered in a series of incidents on the night of 24/25.5.2004. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, motivated by an illicit relationship, conspired to kill the deceased. Eyewitnesses claimed to have identified the appellants in torchlight, but their credibility was questioned due to inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the identification of the appellants and the motive behind the murders. The recovery of firearms was also deemed unreliable due to the absence of independent witnesses during the recovery process.
Issues: The main issues were the reliability of eyewitness identification in low light conditions and the sufficiency of motive for the murders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to their acquittal.
Result: Appeals allowed, convictions set aside.

JUDGMENT :

(Per: Mayank Kumar Jain, J)

1. Accused Veda @ Vedpal, Ganga, Jagan, Pyare, Rakesh, Babloo @ Balua, were tried together by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC relating to Crime No.252 of 2004, Police Station Debai, District Bulandshahr and Section 25 Arms Act. They have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act and sentenced to life and lesser sentences all of which are to run concurrently.

Accused Neetu, Vimlesh and Keshav Giri @ Naga Baba were tried under Sections 120-B read with Section 302 IPC relating to Crime No.252 of 2004, Police Station Debai, District Bulandshahr. Accused Keshav Giri

@ Naga Baba was also tried under Section 25 Arms Act. They were acquitted after trial.

2. Aforesaid criminal appeals are preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 30.6.2007 passed by Sri Raj Singh Verma, the then Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Court No.20, Bulandshahr, whereby:

(a) All the six appellants, namely, Veda @ Vedpal, Ganga, Jagan, Pyare, Rakesh and Babloo @ Balua have been convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC, with a fine of Rs.500/- each, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, with a fine of Rs.5000/- each in Sessions Trial No.625 of 2004, State vs. Veda @ Vedpal and 8 others;

(b) The appellant Rakesh has been convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 25 Arms Act, coupled with a fine of Rs.1000/- in Sessions Trial No.766 of 2004, State vs. Rakesh;

(c) The appellant Veda @ Vedpal has been convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 25 Arms Act, coupled with a fine of Rs.1000/- in Sessions Trial no.1138 of 2004, State vs. Veda @ Vedpal;

(d) The appellant Babloo @ Balua has been convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 25 Arms Act, coupled with a fine of Rs.1000/- in Sessions Trial No.1139 of 2004, State vs. Babloo @ Balua;

(e) The appellant Jagan has been convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 25 Arms Act, coupled with a fine of Rs.1000/- in Sessions Trial No.1140 of 2004, State vs. Jagan;

(f) The appellant Pyare has been convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 25 Arms Act, coupled with a fine of Rs.1000/- in Sessions Trial No.1141 of 2004, State vs. Pyare; and

(g) The appellant Ganga has been convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 25 Arms Act, coupled with a fine of Rs.1000/- in Sessions Trial No.1142 of 2004, State vs. Ganga.

3. The trial Court further directed that in case of default of fine, each appellant shall undergo one-year additional imprisonment. It was also directed that all sentences shall run concurrently.

4. During the pendency of the present appeals, appellant Jagan died on 02.04.2014 and vide order dated 5.8.2024 of this Court, the appeal in respect of accused Jagan stands abated.

5. Since all the appeals arise out of a common judgment and order, therefore, they are being disposed off by this common judgment.

6. This is a case where four persons were done to death during one go of incident that occurred in the intervening night of 24/25.5.2004.

In the first occurrence, Zalim Singh was shot dead at his tube well, in the second occurrence, Santosh and Dinesh were done to death at their tube well and in the third occurrence, Kunwar Singh was shot dead by assailants at his tube well.

The FIR

7. The First Information Report was registered at Police Station Debai, District Bulandshahar on the basis of a written report submitted by informant Bunty, the son of deceased Dinesh on 25.05.2004 at 6:20 AM.

8. The case of the prosecution unfolded in the FIR is summarised thus:

(a) Accused Neetu W/o Pramod was having illicit relation with accused Veda @ Vedpal. Their relation was opposed by the informant and his family members. Ve