IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ramesh Sinha, Vivek Varma, JJ.
Shiv Pratap Singh & Others – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 387 of 1985
Decided On : 13-12-2021
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, J.
INTRODUCTION
1. Six accused persons, namely, Shiv Pratap Singh, Vijay Vikram Singh, Kali Charan, Nanhey, Ram Autar and Jaskaran were tried by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No.314 of 1984 : State Vs. Shiv Pratap Singh and others arising out of Case Crime No.188 of 1983, under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 302 I.P.C. at police station Bilgram, District Hardoi.
2. Vide judgment and order dated 07.06.1985, the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi, while acquitting the accused Jaskaran from all the offences/charges levelled against him, convicted and sentenced the rest of the accused persons, namely, Shiv Pratap Singh, Vijay Vikram Singh, Ram Autar, Kalicharan and Nanhey in the manner as stated herein below:-
ii. Under Section 323 /149 I.P.C. to undergo six months R.I.”
In addition, the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi had also convicted the accused Shiv Pratap Singh, Nanhey Lal and Ram Autar under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo one year’s imprisonment and other two accused persons, namely, Vijay Vikram Singh and Kali Charan were convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo six months’ R.I.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently by the IV Additional Sessions Judge.
3. During pendency of the instant appeal, appellant no.1-Shiv Pratap Singh, appellant no.3-Kalicharan and appellant no.5- Ram Autar died and, as such, vide order dated 13.08.2018, the instant appeal filed against the aforesaid appellants no.1, 3 and 5 stand abated.
4. Now, the instant appeal is surviving only in respect of appellant no.2-Vijay Vikram Singh and appellant no.4- Nanhey, who are said to be in jail since 08.07.2019.
FACT
5. Shorn off, unnecessary details the facts of the case are as under :-
On 28.10.1983, informant-Lal Bahadur Singh (PW1) and his elder brother Vijay Bahadur Singh Pradhan (deceased) had gone to Cold Store, Bilgram for taking the seed of potato and after taking it, they were returning home on their respective bicycle and when they reached near the Sorghum (Jowar) farm of one Kunwar Pal of Chakarpurwa at about 4 p.m. in the evening, accused/appellant no.1-Shiv Pratap Singh armed with Kanta and his son accused/ appellant no.2-Vijay Vikram Singh armed with Lathi challenged them (informant and his brother Vijay Bahadur Singh Pradhan) and said that ^^?ksj dj ekj Mkyks nq'eu vkt tkus u ik,** . Thereupon, appellant no.3- Kalicharan armed with lathi, appellant no.4-Nanhey armed with Banka, appellant no.5-Ram Autar armed with Kanta and other two other persons armed with lathi, to whom identified by him by their face but not by name, came out from Sorgum (Jowar) field and started assaulting the brother of the informant Vijay Bahadur Singh (deceased). Thereafter, informant-Lal Bahadur Singh (P.W.1) and his brother Vijay Bahadur Singh (deceased) raised alarm and on hearing their alarm, Raj Kumar, son of Hardayal and Vishwanath Singh son of Thakur Bux Singh, r/o Kuluwapur, who were ploughing their field nearby and one Ram Saroop Singh (P.W.2), son of Ujagar Singh, who was going towards his home from Bilgram, came at the place of occurrence and they all asked the accused persons not to assault Vijay Bahadur Singh (deceased) and also challenged them. Thereafter, appellant No.3-Kalicharan started assaulting the informant- Lal Bahadur Singh (P.W.1) with lathi, as a consequence of which, he also sustained injuries on his left hand wrist, elbow and arm and on right leg.
It has also been stated in the F.I.R. by the informant-Lal Bahadur Singh (P.W.1) that about five years ago from the date of the incident, his aunt Smt. Bittan Devi, who is the samdhin of appellant no.1-Shiv Pratap Singh and mother-in-law of appellant no. 2-Vijay Vikram Singh, was murdered, in which his brother Vijay Bahadur Singh (deceased) was named as accused but was later on acquitted by the competent Court. On account of
Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P.
Balraje v. State of Maharashtra
Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra
Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab
Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P.
Mano Dutt and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh : (2012) 4 SCC 79
Conviction affirmed – Offence of Murder - Prosecution evidence is trustworthy and prosecution has brought home the guilt of all the appellants by cogent, credible and trustworthy evidence.
Testimony of interested witnesses is not a sole criterion to disbelieve their versions.
Point of Law : A wife, who has seen an assailant giving fatal blows with a stick to her husband, would name the assailant to all present and to the police at an earliest opportunity.
In riot cases, convictions require clear evidence detailing each accused's participation; injured witnesses’ testimonies, backed by medical evidence, may suffice for conviction.
Criminal Law - Witnesses - Reliability of - Benefit of doubt - Evidence of PW-1 (informant) and PW-2 who are chance witnesses and claimed themselves to be eye witnesses of incident. Their evidence do....
Once there is no eye-witness of incident prosecution will have to establish a motive for commission of crime.
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.