IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Siddhartha Varma, Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, JJ.
Rohtash And Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 3063 of 1983
Decided On : 19-09-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 302, 149 - Criminal appeal against conviction for murder - Appellants convicted for life imprisonment under Section 302/149 IPC, with additional sentences under Sections 147 and 148 IPC - The trial court found sufficient evidence of motive and eyewitness accounts supporting the prosecution's case - The court emphasized the importance of corroboration between medical and ocular evidence - The appeal was partly allowed for one appellant due to lack of evidence for specific injuries attributed to him. (Paras 1-28)
Facts of the case:
The informant alleged that the appellants, motivated by revenge for a prior murder, attacked the deceased Bhopal, resulting in his death from multiple injuries, including gunshot wounds. The FIR was lodged promptly after the incident. (Paras 2-3)
Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction was upheld for most appellants based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, although one appellant's conviction was overturned due to insufficient evidence linking him to the crime. (Paras 24-28)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of eyewitness accounts, the motive for the crime, and the adequacy of evidence linking each appellant to the specific injuries sustained by the deceased. (Paras 18-27)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the convictions of most appellants, while highlighting the need for consistency between eyewitness testimony and medical findings. (Paras 24-27)
Result: The appeal was partly allowed; one appellant was acquitted of all charges. (Paras 28-29)
JUDGMENT :
Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 09.12.1983, passed by learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, in Sessions Trial No.381 of 1982, whereby the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred as ‘trial court’) has convicted the appellants namely, Rohtash, Vija alias Vijaipal, Dileep, Mughal and King Kong under Section 302/149 IPC for life imprisonment, while appellant Rohtash was further convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years imprisonment and the remaining appellants are convicted under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Factual matrix of the case in brief are that the informant Vishambher, son of Natthu, lodged an FIR orally at police station Purkaji, District Muzaffar Nagar stating that he is resident of village Khedaki, Police Station Purkaji, District Muzaffar Nagar. In last winter, his co-villager Bhopal, son of Mama and others had committed murder of Samay, son of Chohal. On account of the enmity of said murder case, on 6.8.1982, at 5/6:00 PM when he was coming from his agricultural field alongwith his bullock, he found that said Bhopal was fishing while sitting on slope of southwards to the river bank. Suddenly, his co-villager Rohtash armed with a countrymade pistol, Vijayee @ Vijja and his father Mughal wielding lathis in their hands, Dileep and King Kong, sons of Chohal having lathies in their hands appeared and accused Vijayee @ Vijja, Mugal, Dalip and King Kong started assaulting Bhopal by lathies. Rohtash fired two shots at Bhopal in the meanwhile and due to injuries suffered in the incident, Bhopal died on the spot. The occurrence was also witnessed by Rajpal, son of Atar Sing. He left villagers near the dead body and came at the police station to lodge the report. The delay while reaching police station occurred due to non availability of conveyance and pathway becoming muddy. The report was lodged on same day i.e. 6.8.1982, at 23:30 hours, vide Crime No.128 of 1982, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC by Head Muharrir Satyapal Sharma on the basis of oral account of Vishambhar. He also made entry of lodging of this FIR vide report No.28, time 23:30 hours dated 6.8.1982, in which it is stated that Vishambher @ Banda, Son of Nathhu Harijan, resident of village Khedaki, Police Station Purkaji, accompanied with Rishi, resident of Gram Khedaki appeared at police station and gave oral information regarding the incident against five named accused namely, Rohtash, Vijja, Mughal, Dileep and King Kong. After lodging of FIR and registration of case vide said GD entry, S.O. Shiv Raj Singh Tyagi (PW-4) rushed to the spot where dead body was lying together with S.I. Jagdamba Prasad and two constables Surendra Singh and Dhanpal Singh alongwith necessary papers and after appointing Panch witnesses, commenced inquest on dead body of deceased Bhopal on 7.8.1982, at 6:00 AM, which concluded at 7:30 AM on same day i.e. 7.8.1982. The inquest was conducted on place of incident where the dead body was lying. It was stucked in between water and mud and was found in supine position. In the opinion of Panch witnesses, the deceased Bhopal died due to firearm and lathi injuries received during the incident. The deceased was wearing a 'kameej' and white underwear, which were blood stained. The inquest Officer (S.O. concerned) entrusted the dead body alongwith copy of inquest report, copy of FIR, copy of GD Entry and photo lash, challan lash, report R.I., Report CMO and sample seal prepared by him to two Constables namely, Balveer Singh and Surendra Singh, who were posted at police station concerned for transporting the dead body to Headquarter at mortuary for postmortem. The Investigating Officer took into possession one cartridge shell 12 bore, one empty cartridge 12 bore without bottom
Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab
The court upheld the convictions based on corroborated eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, emphasizing the need for consistency in proving complicity in murder.
Conviction upheld - Reliability of witness testimony - It is settled that merely because witnesses are close relatives of victim, their testimonies cannot be discarded. Relationship with one of parti....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; uncorroborated and contradictory witness accounts render convictions unsafe.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and discrepancies in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, taking into account the motive, presence of witnesses, and me....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of common intention in determining the appropriate conviction for the accused, considering the lack of evidence es....
The conviction based on unreliable partisan witness testimony and a fabricated dying declaration was set aside due to investigative flaws and lack of impartiality.
The presence of injured eyewitnesses and corroborative medical evidence justifies a conviction, affirming the principle that familial relationships do not undermine testimonial credibility.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.