IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, JJ.
Neelu and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1203 of 2020
Decided On : 03-09-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25 - Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment set aside due to lack of reliable evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies - The prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt as the testimonies of the key witnesses were not corroborated and the recovery of firearms was disbelieved. (Paras 32, 33)
(B) Evidence - Testimony of related witnesses - The court emphasized the need for careful scrutiny of testimonies from related witnesses, especially when they are the sole basis for conviction, as established in prior case law. (Paras 29, 30)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a conviction for murder where the accused were sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case relied heavily on eyewitness accounts, which were found to be unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration. The recovery of firearms was also questioned.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the reversal of the conviction.
Issues: The main issues included the reliability of eyewitness testimonies and the validity of the firearm recovery.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction, highlighting the importance of corroboration in witness testimonies.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence reversed.
JUDGMENT :
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. Heard Sri S.D. Singh Jadaun, Sri Bhavesh Singh Jadaun, Sri Dipansh, Sri Subham Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Archana Singh, Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.12.2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Kanpur Nagar, in Session Trial No. 208 of 2004 (State Vs. Kishan Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 135 of 2003; Sessions Trial No. 209 of 2004 (State vs. Neelu), Arising Out of Case Crime No. 137 of 2003; Sessions Trial No. 251 of 2004 (State vs. Rakesh @ Chuhiya), arising out of Case Crime No. 139 of 2003, Police Station Badshahi Naka, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby the accused appellants Neelu and Rakesh @ Chuhiya have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.15,000/- each under Section 302 IPC and on failure to deposit fine to undergo imprisonment for six months; accused appellant Neelu has been convicted and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 25 Arms Act and on failure to deposit fine to undergo imprisonment for one month; accused appellant Rakesh @ Chuhiya has been convicted and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 25 Arms Act; and on failure to deposit fine to undergo imprisonment for one month. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
3. Mother of the deceased is the informant, who has lodged a report at 12.25 AM on 7.10.2003 in respect of an incident which occurred about half an hour before at 12.00 PM on 6.10.2003. The written report is scribed by PW-7 Vijay Kumar Gupta as per which the deceased was sitting on a cot outside Kanpur Kuli Bazar near Sabzi Mandi. The informant was sitting on a cot alongwith her son and two others, namely Dharmendra and Vinod. Visibility existed due to street light. Lighting was also available because of the Bharat Milap organized in the area on that evening. It is alleged that at about 12.00 in the night four accused came from the front lane with firearms in their hands and on the exhortation of accused Dileep all four accused indiscriminately fired on account of which the informant’s son sustained firearm injury and he fell. The informant alongwith others present screamed whereafter the accused persons fled from the spot. Crowd had otherwise gathered to see Bharat Milap. People started running helter-skelter and the public order was destroyed. Informant alleged that the accused persons had enmity with the deceased on account of running of a vegetable shop (Aadhat). There was a dispute relating to possession of the street side land on which the shop was situated. The injured son of the informant was rushed on the cot to Ursula Hospital. With these allegations the FIR came to be registered as Case Crime No. 135 of 2003. The Investigating Officer proceeded to investigate the case and from the site where the incident occurred two empty cartridges were recovered. The Investigating Officer also recovered blood stained garbage etc. from the place of occurrence vide Ex.Ka.12. The Investigating Officer also recovered blood stained ‘baan’ of cot vide Ex.Ka.13. Inquest thereafter was conducted on 7.10.2003 at the mortuary between 9.00 AM to 10.00 AM. The inquest witnesses were Radhey Sonkar, Kalicharan, Sagar Sonkar, Smt. Rajkumari and Shivkishore. The inquest witnesses opined that the postmortem be conducted whereafter the body was sealed and sent to mortuary where postmortem was conducted on 7.10.2003 at about 12.00 Noon. The deceased was found to be around twenty years of age and the approximate time of death was half a day. The cause of death was found to be shock and haemorrhage on account of following ante-mortem injuries:
The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on uncorroborated witness testimony, especially from related parties, is insufficient for conviction.
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
The prosecution bears the burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and significant inconsistencies in witness testimony can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on consistent eyewitness testimony and corroborative medical evidence, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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.
Conviction based solely on testimonies of related witnesses is unsafe without independent corroboration, as evidenced by inconsistencies and lack of physical evidence.
Point of Law : Conviction on the basis of statements of two police officials alone is not sustainable.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; unreliable eyewitness testimony, especially from near relatives, cannot substantiate a conviction.
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.