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

2023 Supreme(All) 2871

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
RAJAN ROY, AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, JJ.
Gore Singh And 9 Others - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.494 of 1986
Decided on : 12-12-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : B.M. Sahai
For the Respondent: G.A.

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 recovered weapons.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 148, and 149 - Appeal against conviction for double murder - The appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment for murder with common intention - Prosecution proved motive and direct testimony - The presence of faecal matter in deceased does not undermine time of death established by witnesses - Conviction upheld. (Paras 2, 5, 18, 30)

(B) Evidence - Credibility of Witnesses - Testimony of eye-witnesses corroborated medical evidence - Relationship of witness does not inherently compromise credibility - Failure to recover murder weapon does not negate strong ocular evidence. (Paras 21, 30)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were involved in a double murder arising from previous enmity with the deceased. On 31.12.1983, armed with various weapons, they attacked the deceased, leading to their deaths as corroborated by post-mortem findings. (Paras 5, 12, 18)

Findings of Court:
The court confirmed that the evidence presented indisputably proved the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, with the trial court's conviction being accurate and justified. (Paras 30, 31)

Issues: The core issues were the reliability of eyewitness testimony versus the absence of direct evidence of weapon recovery and the interpretation of medical findings regarding time of death. (Paras 30)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that motive, eye-witness accounts, and medical evidence collectively corroborated the prosecution's narrative, validating the trial court's decision. The relationship between witnesses and the deceased did not discredit their testimonies. (Paras 21, 30)

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.

Table of Content
1. the appeal is based on an alleged double murder with prior enmity. (Para 2)
2. evidence of double murder established (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. defense arguments regarding testimony credibility (Para 16 , 17 , 21)
4. importance of corroborated medical evidence (Para 19 , 20 , 22 , 29)
5. the conviction was upheld, reaffirming that the evidence presented was beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 25)
6. charges under sections 302, 149, and 148 ipc established (Para 30)
7. appeal dismissed; sentence enforcement ordered (Para 31 , 32 , 33)

JUDGMENT :

(Per: Rajan Roy, J. )

1. Heard Sri B.M. Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant nos.3, 6, 8 & 10 and Sri Umesh Chandra Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This is an appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 26.07.1986 passed by Special Judge, Unnao in Session Trial No.261/1984 lodged at P.S.-Asiwan, District-Unnao sentencing each of the appellants to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C.

3. Out of the ten appellants who had filed this appeal only appellant nos.3, 6, 8 & 10 are alive. The appeal with regard to others has already been dismissed as abated.

4. It is a case of double murder.

5. The case of prosecution in nutshell is that there was a prior enmity between the accused and the deceased. Some of the accused had fired upon him earlier which led to a criminal case. He was a witness in another murder case involving some of the accused. A year ago, these persons had falsely implicated the deceased and Informant in a case in which they had been acquitted by the Sessions Court. A couple of months ago, deceased was attacked with bombs etc which led to another criminal case between the parties. As regards the case at hand, the informant's side had purchased some land in village-Mirzapur, P.S.-Asiwan. The boundaries of the said land were being marked and repaired. On 31.12.1983 at about 09:00 A.M., the Informant along with the deceased-Gauri Shankar, brother-Sundar Lal and one Hari Pal Yadav had also gone for the said purpose. Sundar Lal was carrying his revolver. Mahabali Yadav, Puttilal Yadav and Raghuraj Yadav were also repairing the boundaries (Medh) on his fields. As soon as they reached their newly purchased land, the accused came out of the sugarcane fields situated towards north-west of the informant's agricultural field. Some of the accused were armed with rifle, guns while others with Kulhari etc. Gore Singh and Nawab Singh exhorted the other accused to kill Gauri Shankar and Sundarlal. All the accused fired with rifles and guns upon them with common intent to kill. Informant's father and brother were slightly ahead of him. They ran towards the 'Purab Tal'. Sundarlal fired from his revolver in defence. The informant and Haripal ran towards the south. The accused surrounded his father and brother towards the east near the mango tree and killed them by firing from their firearms. Gore Singh-the accused took away the revolver of his brother. Gore Singh, Baram Singh and Ramu Singh were carrying rifles and rest were carrying guns from which they fired. The accused-Hemraj was carrying a 'Kulhari'. When the informant's side raised an alarm other villagers including Nanha Singh came. The accused ran away towards the north.

6. F.I.R. was lodged on 31.12.1983 itself at 12:30 P.M. The lodging of the F.I.R. is reasonably prompt considering the distance of the police station which was eight miles from the scene of crime.

7. Post-mortem report of Sunder Lal is Ex.Ka.1. He had twenty injuries on his body most of which were firearm injuries. He also had a lacerated wound on the back of his head i.e. injury no.20. It has come in the testimony of eye-witness i.e. P.W.1-Dr. V.N. Mathur that this injury was caused by kulhari. The cause of death of Sunder Lal is mentioned as shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. P.W.1 has proved this

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