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) 2146

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Manoj Kumar Gupta, Manish Kumar Nigam, JJ.
Lavkush – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 602 of 2019
Decided On : 20-12-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Pragyan Kumar Mishra, Sharad Mayank Pandey

The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25 - Conviction for murder and illegal possession of arms - The trial court convicted the appellant for murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment, which was appealed - The court found contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence, leading to reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt - The trial court's reliance on the testimonies of hostile witnesses was deemed erroneous. (Paras 1, 70)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Recovery of weapon - The recovery of the weapon was not conducted in accordance with legal requirements, affecting its admissibility - The prosecution failed to connect the weapon to the crime through ballistic evidence. (Paras 53, 64)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering his mother, allegedly due to her disapproval of his relationship with a neighbor. Witnesses claimed to have seen the incident, but their testimonies were inconsistent and contradicted by the medical evidence. (Paras 3, 70)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in witness statements and lack of corroborative evidence. (Paras 70)

Issues: The main issues included the reliability of witness testimonies, the admissibility of the recovery of the weapon, and the connection between the weapon and the crime. (Paras 70)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, emphasizing the importance of consistent and corroborative evidence in criminal cases. (Paras 70)

Result: Appeal allowed; the appellant acquitted of all charges.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Kumar Nigam, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 28.8.2017 and order of conviction dated 30.8.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Muzzafarnagar (hereinafter referred as 'trial Court') whereby the learned trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 279 of 2012 (State v. Lavkush and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 468/2011, has convicted Lavkush (appellant-accused) s/o late Bhagmal for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him for life imprisonment and has ordered him to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. It has further been provided that in case of default of payment of fine, the appellant has to further undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. In Sessions Trial No. 280/2012 (State v. Lavkush) arising out of Case Crime No. 470/2011, under Section 25 of Arms Act, the Court sentenced the appellant to undergo two years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of the payment of fine, to suffer additional imprisonment of three months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. By the same judgment dated 28.8.2017, learned trial Court acquitted the other co-accused, namely, Smt. Meena, under Sections 302/34 and 120-B of I.P.C.

2. The factual matrix of the case, which are relevant for present criminal appeal are that informant, namely, Sonu s/o late Bhagmal submitted a written complaint Ex.Ka-1 on 16.11.2011 on which the First Information Report Ex.Ka-2 was registered in Case Crime No. 468 of 2011 under Section 302 I.P.C. at P.S. Bhopa, Jansath, District-Muzzafarnagar against one Lavkush. On the same day at 22:30 hours another F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 470 of 2011, Ex.Ka-4, was also lodged by Sri Sanjay Verma, Station Officer, P.S.-Bhopa, against Lavkush under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959.

3. As per the First Information Report Ex.Ka-2, the informant stated that his brother, namely, Lavkush, was a vagabond and drunkard. He was having illicit relationship with Mrs. Meena, wife of his neighbour Ajeet, resident of Rahmatpur, P.S.-Bhopa. His mother used to dissuade Lavkush from having relationship with Meena, and for this reason his brother shot his mother dead in the night of 16.11.2011. Ravinder, s/o Jaipal and Gajendra Kumar s/o Dharampal had seen his brother running away from the spot after shooting his mother.

4. After the First Information Report was lodged, the police investigated the crime and after collecting the evidence, charge-sheet Ex. Ka-6 was submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C against Lavkush and Smt. Meena under Sections 302 and 120-B I.P.C. in Case Crime No. 468 of 2011. Another charge-sheet Ex. Ka 18 was submitted against Lavkush under Section 25 of Arms Act.

5. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance and complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. On commencement of trial, learned Sessions Court on 27.4.2012 framed charges against Smt. Meena under Sections 302/34 and 120-B I.P.C. and Lavkush under Sections 302, 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 25 of Arms Act. The charges were explained and read over to accused persons, who denied the charges and pleaded not guilty.

6. During trial, statement of eight persons were recorded by the prosecution, namely, Ravindra Kumar PW-1, Gajendra Kumar PW-2, Sonu (informant/brother of accused-appellant) PW-3, Rakesh Kumar (Constable Clerk, P.S.-Bhopa) PW-4, Vijendra Singh Bhadana (Station Officer, P.S.-Bhopa) PW-5, Sanjay Verma (Station Officer, P.S.-Bhopa) PW-6, Yashpal Singh (Sub Inspector, P.S.-Bhopa) PW-7 and Dr. Arun Kumar (Medical Officer, District Hospital, Muzzafarnagar) PW-8. The statements of the accused persons Smt. Meena and Lavkush were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

7. The prosecution produced Written Report Ex. Ka-1, chik F.I.Rs. Ex.Ka-2 and Ex.Ka-4, memo of possession of country made pistol and empty cartridges Ex.Ka-15, memo of possession of blood stained & plain earth Ex

      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