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

2025 Supreme(All) 2154

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
SANGEETA CHANDRA, MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN, JJ.
Raj Deo and Others - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 2001
Decided On : 08-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : U.P. Singh.
For the Respondent: Anil Kumer Singh and Vijai Shankar Tripathi.

The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on the established common object of the unlawful assembly, supported by credible witness testimonies and medical evidence.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 302/149 - Appeal against conviction for murder - Conviction of Ram Vishal under Section 148 and all appellants under Section 302/149 IPC upheld - Evidence established unlawful assembly with common object to commit murder - Testimony of eye-witnesses corroborated by medical evidence - Minor contradictions in witness statements do not undermine credibility - Dying declaration admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. (Paras 1, 16, 20, 40)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Ramjas, who was assaulted by the accused while returning from the market. The deceased sustained multiple injuries and died during treatment. The trial court found the prosecution's case proved beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 2, 4, 20)

Findings of Court:
The trial court's judgment was affirmed, establishing the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit murder, supported by the evidence of eye-witnesses and medical reports. (Paras 40, 41)

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of witness testimonies, the common object of the unlawful assembly, and the admissibility of the deceased's statement as a dying declaration. (Paras 16, 20)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence of related witnesses could be relied upon, and the presence of minor contradictions did not detract from their reliability. The common object of the assembly was inferred from the nature of the attack and the weapons used. (Paras 26, 40)

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld. (Paras 41, 42)

JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri U.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri U.C. Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Vijai Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/informant and perused the record.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants, namely, Raj Deo, Ram Singar, Ram Vishal, Ram Bodh and Surya Bhan under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order of the trial Court dated 5.3.2001 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No. 222 of 1992 (State v. Raj Deo and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 263 of 1991, under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 I.P.C., Police Station Lambhua, District Sultanpur, whereby the appellant-Ram Vishal has been convicted for committing offence under Section 148 and 302/149 I.P.C. and rest of the appellants have been convicted for committing offence under Section 147 and 302/149 I.P.C. and have been sentenced with maximum term of rigorous life imprisonment' pertaining to offence under Section 302/149 I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 5000/- alongwith default clause.

3. Shri U.P. Singh, learned counsel representing the appellants submits that appellant No. 1/Raj Deo and appellant No. 4/Ram Bodh had died on 13.2.2015 and 9.7.2012 respectively during the pendency of this appeal. This submission of learned counsel for the appellant has also been corroborated by the report of the C.J.M., Sultanpur of date 30.9.2019. vide order of date 13.3.2024 passed by this Court, the proceedings of this appeal have already been abated with regard to appellant No. 1/Raj Deo and appellant No. 4/Ram Bodh. Thus, the instant appeal survives only for appellants No. 2, 3 and 5, namely, Ram Singar, Ram Vishal and Surya Bhan.

4. The necessary facts required for disposal of the instant appeal appears to be that, an F.I.R. was lodged by the informant Raj Mani at Police Station Kadipur at 19:25 hours on 10.9.1991 alleging that his nephew Ramjas S/o Babban Mishra was returning from Lambhua market at about 5:00 p.m.. after purchasing spare parts of a tractor on bicycle and he was intercepted by the accused persons Raj Deo, Ram Singar, Ram Vishal, Ram Bodh and Surya Bhan at Lambhua-Durgapur road, who were armed with 'lathi-danda' and Axe (kulhari) and assaulted him brutally whereby he sustained grievous injuries. On an alarm being raised, Radhey Shyam S/o Badri, Ram Jiyawan S/o Lal Mohan, Mahendra S/o Raj Mani and Ram Baran Tiwari S/o Ram Abhilakh arrived at the scene of the crime and challenged the assailants. The deceased, who at that point of time was injured, was taken to the hospital on a 'rickshaw' by Ram Baran and Mahendra Kumar and at the time of his admission in the hospital he was bleeding heavily.

5. On the basis of this written information, an F.I.R. at Case Crime No. 263 of 1991, under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 308 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Kadipur, District Sultanpur, substance of which was entered in the General Diary of the police station.

6. The deceased Ram Jas, who at that point of time was injured, was examined by doctor R.P. Singh on 10.9.1991 at 6:45 p.m.. at C.H.C., Lambhua, Sultanpur and he noted following injuries on his person.

(1) Contusion at right side of the parietal region 4cm x 3cm. Reddish in colour 6cm above the right ear. Bleeding from the right nose is present. Patient is drousy. Right pupil is semi dilated.

(2) Contusion at left upper arm 7cm x 2cm .2cm below from left shoulder joint reddish in colour.

(3) Abraded contusion at posterior aspect of the right elbow joint 4cm x 2cm. Oozing of the blood is present.

(4) Multiple contusions all over the back of the Patient in area of chest region size 14cm x 2cm. Each reddish in colour.

(5) Lacerated wound on the right leg 6cm x 2 cm x bone deep. Fresh bleeding present.

Opinion : All the injuries are fresh caused by blunt object. Patient kept under observation because he is having head injury x-ray skull, right elbow joint and right leg advised.

7. During the course of

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