Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTH, SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Ram Sujan – Appellant
versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 3376, 3122 of 2010
Decided on : 06-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 148, 302, 149 - Criminal appeals against conviction for life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment - Appellants convicted for participating in a dacoity resulting in multiple murders - Key witnesses provided inconsistent accounts of the incident, leading to doubts about the reliability of their testimonies - The trial court's reliance on identification parades conducted after significant delays was deemed unjustified - Prosecution failed to establish motive or credible evidence linking the appellants to the crime. (Paras 1, 36, 64, 67)
(B) Test Identification Parade - Necessity for timely and fair procedures - The court emphasized the importance of adhering to established guidelines for conducting identification parades, noting that any delays or irregularities could undermine the integrity of witness identifications. (Paras 56, 62)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were accused of being part of a group that attacked a marriage party returning from a temple visit, resulting in the deaths of several individuals. The FIR initially named unknown miscreants, and subsequent investigations implicated the appellants based on witness testimonies and identification parades. (Paras 3, 64)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to prove the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and procedural failures in conducting identification parades. (Paras 67, 71)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of witness testimonies, the validity of identification parades, and the absence of a clear motive for the alleged crimes. (Paras 36, 64)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to significant inconsistencies in witness statements and procedural irregularities in the identification process, which cast doubt on the reliability of the evidence presented. (Paras 67, 70)
Result: Appeals allowed; the appellants were acquitted and ordered to be released from custody. (Paras 71, 72)
JUDGMENT :
(Delivered by Hon’ble Siddharth,J.)
1. The above noted criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.04.2010 passed by Special Judge, (Dacoity Affected Area) Act, Banda in Special Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2023, State vs. Anurag Mishra and Another; Special Sessions Trial No. 74/2023, State Vs. Ramji Vs. Another and Special Sessions Trial No. 76/2003, State Vs. Chhota @ Rajesh and Another, by which appellants have been convicted and sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500/- fine under Section 148 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo two months additional rigorous imprisonment.
2. Appellants have been further convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC for life imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/- fine and in default of payment of fine to undergo one year’s additional rigorous imprisonment.
3. Prosecution case is that the informant, Chhedi Lal Dwivedi, lodged the F.I.R stating that on 22.01.2003 baarat of son of his brother-in-law (sadhu), Santosh @ Chota Gautam, had gone from District Banda to District Panna in Madhya Pradesh at the house of Vansh Pratap Pathak. On the next day i.e., 23.01.2023 at about 7 a.m the members of the marriage party, namely, Chhedi Lal, the informant, Madan Mohan, Niranjan Verma, Sudhir Kumar Pandey, Ram Sundar Dwivedi, Shailendra Tiwari, Neelu Dwivedi, left in one marshal car, driven by Breznev Kumar @ Guddu, for having darshan of Neelkanth Mahadev Temple, in Kalinjar fort. In the second marshal jeep behind the first jeep, Ashok Kumar Tiwari, his daughter, Shweta, Gandharva Singh Bundela, Puneet Tiwari, Shikhar Pandey, aged about 3 years, Kumari Rashi Pandey, aged about 5 years and Kumari Puja Bundela, aged about 11 years, were accompanying them and it was being driven by, Pintu Chaurasia. When they were returning in two vehicles at about 09:00 a.m., they were surrounded by miscreants and both the drivers stopped the vehicles because of fear. All the persons were directed to come out of vehicles and to turn back and run. When the above noted persons turned back and started running upwards towards the hill, the miscreants abused them and fired from behind from rifles and guns. The informant in order to save himself fell on the ground and came rolling down from the height. Because of firing of the miscreants Ram Sundar Dwivedi, Shailendra @ Shalu, Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Kumari Shweta Tiwari, Gandharva @ Bundela, Sudhir Kumar Pandey, died. Puneet Tiwari, Madan Mohan and Breznev Kumar @ Guddu, suffered injuries. The injured were taken to Banda Hospital in two vehicles. Informant also suffered injuries because of falling and rolling from the height.
4. On the basis of aforesaid report made to the police, F.I.R. was lodged against 5 unknown accused. Investigating officer conducted investigation of the case and after completing the formalities, charge sheet was submitted against Anurag Mishra, Ram Sujan, Ramji @ Ram Lal, Raj Karan @ Pappu, Chota @ Rajpal and Kuber Singh. The trial court framed charges against them under Sections- 148, 307/149, 302/149, 504 IPC and 10/12 Dacoity Affected Area Act. All the accused denied charges and sought trial.
5. In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution produced P.W.-1, informant, Chhedi Lal; P.W.-2, Breznev @ Guddan; P.W.-3, Niranjan; P.W.-4, Raja; P.W.-5, Deendayal Sahu; P.W.-6, Constable Bare Lal; P.W.-7, Dr. B.K. Saxena; P.W.-8, Dr. Rauf Siddhiqui; P.W.-9, Inspector Tulsi Ram Sakyavar; P.W.- 10, Sub-Inspector Mahendra Singh Yadav; P.W.-11, Sub-Inspector Ravindra Kumar Mishra; P.W.-12, Constable 236 Bare Lal; P.W.-13, Constable Shiv Bardan; P.W.-14, Sub-Inspector Chandrabhan Singh; P.W.-15, Bal Mukund Pandey; P.W.-16, Ram Narayan, Joint Secretary Development Authority; P.W.-17, S.D.M., Nandan Chakravarti; P.W.-18, Head Constable Jagdish Babu and P.W.-19, Sub-Inspector, Ram Das Chaudhary.
6. The statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,wherein they pleaded innocence and sta
The prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and procedural irregularities in identification parades.
Point of Law : Test identification report do not constitute substantive evidence and its corroboration from the surrounding circumstance is required.
The conviction under IPC Sections 391 and 395 was undermined by unreliable identification evidence and procedural delays, warranting the benefit of the doubt for the appellants.
The reliability of eye-witness testimonies and the test identification parade in establishing the guilt of the accused.
A conviction under Section 396 IPC requires proof of participation by five or more individuals, which was not established in this case, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliability in evidence, including the identification of the accused, the medical evidence, and the procedure in recording the ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
