SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 1793

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTH, RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, JJ.
Pramod Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. - 107 OF 1983.
Decided On : 13-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant : A.C. Chaturvedi, Krishna Dutt Awasthi, Mewa Lal Shukla
For the Respondent: D.G.A., R.S. Sengar

The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on credible eyewitness testimony and a reliable dying declaration, emphasizing the established motive of caste rivalry.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Criminal appeal against conviction for murder - Appellant convicted for life imprisonment for shooting the deceased during a dispute - Evidence included eyewitness accounts and a dying declaration - Trial court found sufficient motive and corroborative evidence for conviction. (Paras 2, 24)

(B) Dying Declaration - The court emphasized the reliability of the dying declaration recorded by the doctor, which identified the appellant as the shooter, despite the appellant's claims of its unreliability. (Paras 8, 24)

(C) Caste Rivalry - The court noted the motive behind the crime was rooted in caste enmity, which was corroborated by the evidence presented. (Paras 23, 24)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Rajendra Kumar, who was shot during a confrontation in a potato field. The incident involved multiple witnesses and a history of enmity between the deceased and the accused. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction was based on eyewitness testimony, a dying declaration, and the recovery of the murder weapon, establishing the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 24, 25)

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the dying declaration, the reliability of eyewitness accounts, and the presence of motive for the crime. (Paras 22, 24)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dying declaration was credible and corroborated by eyewitness testimony, affirming the trial court's findings on the appellant's guilt. (Paras 24, 25)

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.

JUDGMENT

Siddharth, J.

Heard Sri. Mewa Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. G.N. Kanaujia, learned A.G.A.-1 for the state-respondent.

2. Present criminal appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 13.01.1983 passed by Sessions Judge, Etawah in Sessions Trial No.267 of 1979 convicting and sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 27.02.1979 at about 8.30 a.m. Ram Swaroop PW-1; Suggat Khan PW-2; Budh Lal, Ram Rai and Rajendra Kumar (deceased) were digging potatoes in the field of informant, Ram Swaroop. Accused, Ram Kumar and Anil Kumar came to the field of Ram Swaroop and abused Rajendra Kumar and caught hold of him forcibly, threw him on ground and pressed him down. The informant and others asked why they are behaving against Rajendra Kumar in such manner. In the meanwhile, Rajendra Kumar, freed himself from the clutches of Ram Kumar and Anil Kumar and ran towards the village. On road he saw the accused, Shyam Singh and Pramod Kumar (appellant) coming from village side. On the exhortation of accused Shyam Singh, accused Pramod Singh, who was carrying a rifle, shot Rajendra Kumar on his chest and he fell down. On hearing sound of fire, Chhedi Lal, Metti Lal and others and also the informant and other witnesses present in the potato field reached there. The accused on seeing them fled away. The informant and other witnesses took the injured, Rajendra Kumar, to police station where Ram Swaroop got the first information lodged. It was stated in the first information report that there was enmity of Rajendra Kumar with the accused persons and hence they committed the alleged offence against him.

4. In support of prosecution case eye witnesses, namely, Ram Swaroop and Suggat Khan were examined as PW.1 and PW.2. Dr. Janmajay Shukla, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, was examined as PW-3. B. Roy, ballistic expert, was examined as PW-4. Dr. R. C. Sharma, who conducted post mortem of dead body of deceased was examined as PW-5. Raj Bahadur, constable of the police station, who went to search the house of Ranjit Singh and recovery of rifle used in the incident was made and recovery memo was prepared in his presence, was examined as PW-6. Surjeet Singh, who prepared the chik report and registered case, at police station, was examined as PW-7. Todar Singh, constable, who took the dead body of Rajendra Kumar for post mortem, was examined as PW. 8. Ram Autar Gupta, Sub Inspector who prepared the inquest report and other papers was examined as PW-9. Birendra Kumar Srivastava, Arms clerk, who brought the arms licence register and proved that the licence of Rifle No.3358 was in the name of accused, Shyam Singh, was examined as PW-10; Ram Bahadur, Sub Inspector who was the Investigating Officer of the case, was examined as PW-11 for life.

5. The trial court discharged the co-accused, Anil Kumar and Ram Kumar and only Pramod Kumar has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C.

6. PW-1, Ram Swaroop, stated before the court that deceased was his nephew (bhanja). Accused, Pramod Kumar and Anil Kumar are sons of accused, Shyam Singh. Accused, Ram Kumar, is son of accused, Ranjit Singh. He explained the place of incident with reference to the adjoining plots. He stated that on the date of incident PW-1 and deceased, Rajendra Kumar; Budh Lal, Raja Ram and Suggat Khan were digging potatoes when accused, Ram Kumar and Anil Kumar started abusing Rajendra Kumar and threw him on the ground and the informant and others asked them why they are behaving like this with Rajendra Kumar. In the meanwhile Rajendra Kumar stood up and ran towards the village. When he reached the road he saw accused Shyam Singh and Pramod Kumar, coming. Pramod Kumar was having a rifle and on the exhortation of accused, Shyam Singh, he fired from the rifle and the bullet hit, Rajendra Kumar on the right side of his chest. On hearing sound of firing Chhedi Lal, Me

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top