Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rajiv Gupta, Samit Gopal, JJ.
Jhande Yadav @ Jhundu @ Shiv Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 1872 of 2015Criminal Appeal No. - 1814 of 2015, Criminal Appeal No. - 968 of 2019, Criminal Appeal No. - 2110 of 2015, Criminal Appeal No. - 2184 of 2015, Criminal Appeal No. - 2400 of 2015, Criminal Appeal No. - 3001 of 2015
Decided On : 20-09-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 - Criminal appeals against conviction - Accused convicted for rioting and murder - The trial court's reliance on the testimony of a single witness, the first informant, was deemed insufficient due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration - The court emphasized the need for reliable evidence, especially when the case rests solely on one witness - The confessional statements of some accused were found to be recorded in violation of procedural safeguards, rendering them inadmissible - Appeals allowed, conviction set aside. (Paras 1, 36, 44, 63, 66)
Facts of the case:
The appeals arise from the conviction of multiple accused for the murder of Azad Yadav, based on the testimony of the first informant, who claimed to have witnessed the incident. The FIR was lodged the following morning, raising questions about its timeliness and reliability.
Findings of Court:
The court found the first informant's testimony unreliable, citing inconsistencies and the absence of corroborating evidence.
Issues: The main issues included the reliability of the first informant's testimony and the admissibility of confessions made by the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a conviction based on the testimony of a solitary witness requires that witness to be wholly reliable, which was not the case here. The procedural lapses in recording confessions further undermined the prosecution's case.
Result: Appeals allowed, and the accused were acquitted.
JUDGMENT :
Samit Gopal, J.
1. These criminal appeals are connected together as being of co-accused persons which have been preferred against the judgement and order dated 15.4.2015 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar in Session Trial No. 07 of 2003 (State vs. Indra Bahadur Singh and 8 others) whereby the accused-appellants Lalli Singh, Virendra, Jhande Yadav @ Jhundu @ Shiv Kumar, Chaloo Yadav @ Ram Chandra Yadav, Ghanshyam Singh, Jay Karan Singh, Jhallar Singh, Shivnath Yadav and Indra Bahadur Singh have been convicted and sentenced under Section 147 I.P.C. to 01 year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to 01 month additional imprisonment, under Section 148 I.P.C. to 01 year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to 01 month additional imprisonment, under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to 02 months additional imprisonment. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently and benefit of set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been ordered to be extended to the convicted accused persons.
2. A First Information Report has been lodged against Harnam Singh, Indra Bahadur, Ghanshyam, Virendra, Lalli, Jaikaran and Jhallar, all being residents of village Sipai, Police Station Bindaki, District Kanpur Nagar.
3. During investigation complicity of Shiv Nath Yadav, Pappu Yadav, Chaloo Yadav@Ram Chandra Yadav and Jhande Yadav @ Jhundu @ Shiv Kumar came to light and as such they were also made accused in the present matter. The investigation concluded and a charge sheet no. 129 of 2001 dated 05.8.2001 was filed against Lalli Singh, Jai Karan Singh, Jhallar Singh, Pappu Yadav@ Karpuri and Shiv Nath Yadav. Further Charge Sheet No. 129A of 2001, dated 20.09.2001 was submitted against Chaloo Yadav @ Ram Chandra@Balbir and also against Jhande Yadav @ Jhundu @ Shiv Kumar as an absconder.
4. The accused Indra Bahadur Singh, Ghanshyam Singh, Harnam Singh and Virendra who were named in the F.I.R. were exonerated by the Investigating Agency. They were subsequently summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
5. In so far as Harnam Singh, son of Mani Singh is concerned, his trial stood abated vide order dated 16.10.2007 of the trial court. The trial of Pappu Yadav @ Karpuri also stood abated vide order dated 06.07.2013 of the trial court.
6. The prosecution case as per the F.I.R. lodged on 10.07.2001 at 07:45 a.m. by Babu son of Jagmohan of which Shyam Sunder is the scribe, against 07 named persons namely Harnam Singh, Indra Bahadur, Ghanshyam, Virendra, Lalli, Jaikaran and Jhallar is that around 02 months back Rs.50/- was to be taken from Desi Darji by the persons of sanger group and milk of Desi Darji used to be given to Babu Yadav and then the said persons demanded Rs.50/- of Desi Darji from him, on which he refused giving money and stated that he will only give it when Desi Darji tells him to return, on which the said persons scolded his son Narendra in Sidhi Bazar. His son had beaten Dinesh@Topilal the grandson of Harman Singh with kicks and fists. Due to this reason Sangers entered inside his house with lathi and dandas and assaulted them. The village persons intervened and got the matter settled but the said persons regularly used to extend death threats to them. Today on 09.07.2001 at mid-night his son Azad, like regular days, was at the tube-well for ensuring its safety wherein at about 11:00 p.m. Harnam Singh exhorted to murder him and then stated that he would take care of everything, after which his sons Indra Bahadur, Ghanshyam with Virendra, Lalli, Jai Karan, Jhallar and others armed with Barchhi and country-made pistols started moving ahead in which Virendra and Indra Bahadur were carrying country-made pistols and Ghanshyam, Lalli, Jai Karan and Jhallar were carrying Barchhi with them. On suspicion, he and his brother namely B
A conviction based solely on the testimony of a single witness requires that witness to be wholly reliable; procedural lapses in recording confessions can render them inadmissible.
Compliance with the mandatory requirements for recording a confessional statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and the need for adequate evidence to establish charges under the Indian Penal Code.
Evidence reliance on Section 164 CrPC statements is inadequate when witnesses become hostile, illustrating the need for corroboration and admissibility standards in criminal proceedings.
Confessions made voluntarily and without pressure under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are admissible as evidence.
Conviction cannot be based solely on uncorroborated statements or circumstantial evidence; it must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete chain of events to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion alone does not justify conviction.
Provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within knowledge of a person, burden of proving that fact is upon him.
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
