IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, JJ.
State of Uttar Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Vijay Prakash Sharma And Another – Respondents
Capital Cases No. 2 of 2022 Connected with Criminal Appeal No. 2504 Of 2022 with Criminal Appeal No. 2524 of 2022
Decided On : 27-09-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 307/34 - Conviction for murder - Accused convicted for murder of two persons and sentenced to death - Conviction upheld but death sentence commuted to life imprisonment as case did not fall within 'rarest of rare' category. (Paras 73 and 74)
(B) Evidence - Hostile witnesses - Evidence of hostile witnesses can still be considered if it supports the prosecution case - Conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence if it forms a complete chain pointing to guilt. (Paras 28 and 29)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Krishna Kumar Gupta and his son Kapil Gupta, shot dead during a dispute over property. The trial court sentenced them to death, which was later commuted to life imprisonment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The main issues were the credibility of the witnesses and the appropriateness of the death penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence of hostile witnesses could be considered and that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict the appellants.
Result: Conviction upheld, death sentence commuted to life imprisonment.
JUDGMENT :
(Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.)
Prelude
(1) Two accused persons, namely, Vijay Prakash Sharma and Dheeraj Sharma, were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court-II, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 579 of 2005 : State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Vijay Prakash Sharma and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 196 of 2005, under Sections 302, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, referred hereinafter as ‘I.P.C.’), Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow.
(2) Vide judgment and order dated 13.09.2022, the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-II, Lucknow, convicted both accused persons, Vijay Prakash Sharma and Dheeraj Sharma, under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and vide judgment and order dated 16.09.2022, sentenced them under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. to be hanged to death till they are dead and a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional two months’ imprisonment, however, both accused persons were acquitted under Section 307/34 I.P.C. It was also directed that on payment of the aforesaid fine by the accused persons, Rs.8,00,000/- would be paid to the legal heirs of deceased Kapil Gupta as compensation in terms of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(3) Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentences, accused, Vijay Prakash Sharma, has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2504 of 2022 : Vijay Prakash Sharma vs. State of U.P., whereas accused Dheeraj Sharma preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2524 of 2022 : Dheeraj Sharma Vs. State of U.P..
(4) Capital Case No. 2 of 2022 arises out of the Reference made by the learned trial Court under Section 366 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to this Court for confirmation of the death sentence of convicts/appellants Vijay Prakash Sharma and Dheeraj Sharma.
(5) Since the above-captioned capital sentence reference and criminal appeals arise out of a common factual matrix and impugned judgment/orders dated 13.09.2022 and 16.09.2022, we proceed to decide the same by the common judgment.
Prosecution Case
(6) Shortly stated, the prosecution case runs as under :-
II Convict/appellant Vijay Sharma was the owner of Bajrang Security Agency and V.I.P. Security Agency and its office was situated appurtenant to other portion of the aforesaid place of construction.
III P.W.1-Uday Swaroop Bhardwaj gave a written complaint (Ext. Ka.1) in the Police Station Hazratganj, district Lucknow, stating that construction of shops was almost completed in the aforesaid place. During construction, convict/appellant Vijay Sharma often used to come and threatened Krishna Kumar Gupta (deceased) that the construction place of shops belongs to Kuber Finance Company upon which Rs.17,00,000/- of him was outstanding and in lieu thereof, he (deceased Krishna Kumar Gupta) would have to give three shops to him (convict/appellant Vijay Sharma). On this matter, Krishna Kumar Gupta (deceased) used to say that he had bought this place, therefore, he (convict/appellant Vijay Sharma) did not have any right on it.
IV On 16.04.2005, when he (P.W.1), Krishna Kumar Gupta (deceased), his son Kapil Gupta (deceased) and his friend Rajeev Dixit (P.W.2) were working in the gallery near the stairs of first floor of office and shop, then, around 3:00 p.m., convict/appellant Vijay Sharma and his son Dheeraj Sharma (convict/appellant) came and told to Krishna Kumar Gupta (deceased) that Rs.17,00,000/- was outsta
Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan
Koli Lakhman Bhai Chanabhai vs. State of Gujarat
Mahesh v. State of Maharashtra
Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs State of Uttrakhand
Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb & Ors. v. State of U.P.
Raja @ Rajinder Vs. State of Haryana
Raja and others Vs. State of Karnataka
Rajendra & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra
State of Gujarat v. Anirudh Singh
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raj Kumar
State of Maharashtra v. Suresh
State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani & Anr.
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram
State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran
Sudru Vs. State of Chattisgarh
The court upheld the conviction for murder but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing the need for extreme caution in imposing capital punishment.
Prosecution has failed to prove charges levelled against accused persons under Sections 302/34, 201 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act by any reliable, cogent and independent evidence to hilt beyond reas....
The recovery of the weapon used is not a sine qua non to convict the accused when there is direct evidence in the form of eye witnesses.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on credible evidence, including witness testimony and medical findings, even absent direct physical evidence like weapon recovery.
The conviction of the appellants for double murder was upheld as the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt through credible witness testimonies and medical evidence, despite the absence of....
Point of Law : Conviction on the basis of statements of two police officials alone is not sustainable.
The court determined that the appellant's actions constituted culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II due to lack of intent, modifying the conviction from murder under Section 302.
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.