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
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
Pritinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Gulab v. State of U.P. (2022) 12 SCC 677
Gurcharan Singh and another v. State of Punjab
Rahul v. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs and another
Ram Chander v. State of Haryana
Ram Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 2024 SC 1176
Ramanand alias Nandlal Bharti v. State of U.P. AIR 2022 SC 5273
Sessions Judge Nellore Referring and others v. Intha Ramana Reddy
Shri Gopal and another v. Subhash and others
State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh
State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Singh
Subramanya v. State of Karnataka
Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab
Tahsildar Singh and another v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 1012
The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to reliance on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony from interested parties and lack of independent evidence.
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....
Reliability of evidence and witness credibility are crucial for criminal conviction; discrepancies in testimony and FIR registration can lead to acquittal.
Point of law: Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting ....
1) When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them same or similar role, court cannot convict one accused and acquit other.(2) In cases where injurie....
(1) Murder – In a situation when there is a group attack which lasted for only a few minutes, it is unreasonable to expect an eye-witness to recount each fact in mathematical detail.(2) Defective inv....
Conviction can be based on a sole eyewitness if credible, but significant inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.
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.