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

2025 Supreme(All) 3068

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, JJ. 
Govind And Others - Petitioners
Versus
State - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. - 1739 of 1983
Decided on : 05-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Anup Kumar Upadhyay, Priyansh, Pt. Mohan Chand
For the Respondent: A.G.A.

Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and doubt in evidence lead to acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323/149 - Criminal appeal challenging conviction and sentence for various sections resulting in life imprisonment for the accused - The court evaluated inconsistencies in witness testimonies, medical evidence, and the FIR, leading to reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case. The accused's role in the murder was inadequately supported by the evidence. Gunshot injuries determined as cause of death contrasted with allegations against the surviving accused of inflicting less severe injuries. Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 52-54)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Appellate court's duty - An appeal in criminal matters requires a strict examination of evidence; if reasonable doubt exists, the conviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 50-51)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged a conviction for murder related to an incident on December 2, 1980, where one individual was killed and another injured. The trial court's findings were contested based on witness credibility and inconsistencies.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court determined the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof, reasoning that direct evidence lacked coherence and credibility.

Issues: Whether the accused's actions constituted murder and if the evidence sufficed for conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: Legal assessments clarified that inconsistencies and reasonable doubt within prosecution evidence warranted acquittal.

Result: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside.

Table of Content
1. factual context of the case. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10 , 12)
2. assessment of witness credibility and motivations. (Para 26 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
3. discussion on evidence evaluation. (Para 37 , 39 , 40)
4. legal conclusions on evidence insufficiency. (Para 51)
5. final judgment and directives. (Para 53 , 54 , 55)

JUDGMENT :

Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.

1. Heard Sri Priyansh, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant Karua and Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

2. Instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 26.07.1983 passed by Leaned Additional Session Judge Etah in S.T. 215 of 1982, arising out of Case Crime No.238 of 1980, under Sections 147,148, 302/149, 323/149 IPC, Police Station Sahawar, Kasganj, (then District Eath). Learned trial court, in said trial convicted the appellants Govind, Chhadami and Ram Dayal for charge under Section 148 IPC and sentenced them to two years rigorous imprisonment. Accused Om Prakash and Karua were convicted of charge under section 147 IPC and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment. All the accused namely Govind, Chhadami, Om Prakash, Karua and Ram Dayal were further held guilty for charge under Section 323/149 IPC and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment. All the accused persons were further held guilty of main charge under Section 302/149 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. One accused Ran Singh had been acquitted of all charges for want of evidence.

3. It appears that during the pendency of present appeal, appellants Govind, Chhadami, Om Prakash and Ram Dayal died during the pendency of appeal and this appeal qua them was directed to be abated by order of this Court passed from time to time on order sheet and present appeal has been heard in respect of surviving appellant accused Karua only.

4. The factual matrix of the case as appearing from the material on record is that the informant Het Ram son of Chokhey Lodh lodged an FIR on the basis of written report at P.S. concerned on 02.12.1980 at 09:05 AM. with allegation that on that day, at around 06:30 AM the informant and his sons Budh Singh and Liladhar were on way to Nagariya Sugar Factory and sugarcane was loaded in the buffalo cart. His son Budh Singh was sitting on sugarcane and his other son Liladhar was driving the cart. The informant, the witnesses Basdev and Pusey were following the vehicle on foot. As soon as they reached near the Phooti Ghata Pulia, situated after some distance from Gangpur, his co- villagers Govind, Chhadami, Ram Dayal, Om Prakash and Karua emerged from western-side gunders (Shrubs) Ram Dayal, Govind and Chhadami were armed with country made pistols, Karua and Om Prakash were wielding lathis; Ram Dayal, Govind and Chhadami asked Liladhar to stop the vehicle and challenged him. Liladhar stopped the vehicle, Om Prakash assaulted Liladhar by lathi (club) and he fell down on the earth. Thereafter, Govind, Chhadami, Ram Dayal and Karua climbed the buffalo-cart and brought Budh Singh down. Govind, Chhadami and Ram Dayal opened fired at Budh Singh by their respective country made pistols. Accused Karua had assaulted Budh Singh by Lathi on climbing the buffalo cart. Budh Singh died on the spot having hit by fire arms. These people are assisted by Ran Singh Ahir, R/o Meerapurwa and Baboo Lodh R/o Chak, P.S. Kasganj.

5. The written report Ext. Ka-1 was scribed by one Natthu Ram, a co-villager. Constable Moharir Ramesh Singh had drawn chick FIR Ext. Ka-4 on the basis of said written report and registered a case against five named accused persons, while GD Entry No.16 time 09:05 hours dated 02.12.1980. The extracts of said GD Entry are proved on record as Ext. Ka-5. The inquest was conducted on dead body of the deceased Budh Singh on 02.12.1980 between 10:00 am to 11:30 am at the place of incident by S.I. Hori Lal in presence of Panch Witnesses. In inquest report Ext. Ka-6 nine injuries are described on the person of the deceased. The dea

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