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

2024 Supreme(All) 2457

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, JJ.
Jageshwar Singh And Ors. – Appellants 
Versus 
State of U.P. – Respondents 
Criminal Appeal No.3172 of 1983
Decided on : 16-12-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : T. Rathore, Mahesh Prasad Yadav, V.S. Singh
For the Respondent: D.G.A., A.G.A, G.S. Chaturvedi

The prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 447, 302/34, 394 - Conviction for murder, robbery, and criminal trespass - Appellants convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and life imprisonment - The trial court's findings were challenged on grounds of recognition of accused and delay in FIR - The court noted inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence regarding the source of light during the incident. (Paras 2, 3, 30, 31)

(B) Burden of proof - The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt - The court emphasized that the testimony of an injured eyewitness carries significant weight but must be scrutinized for reliability. (Paras 29, 32)

Facts of the case:
The incident occurred on the night of 19/20.1.1981, resulting in the death of the informant's wife during a robbery. The FIR was lodged hours later, and multiple witnesses provided conflicting accounts of the event.

Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of physical evidence.

Issues: The primary issues were the reliability of eyewitness accounts, the implications of pre-existing enmity, and the adequacy of evidence linking the accused to the crime.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the prosecution's narrative was implausible, given the circumstances of the incident, and the failure to produce key evidence undermined the case.

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

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri M.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. Sri Rahul Asthana, for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. Present criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.12.1983, passed by learned Special Judge, Banda, in Sessions Trial No.112 of 1981, whereby the learned Special Judge, Banda (hereinafter referred as ‘trial court’) has convicted the appellants under Sections 447, 302/34, 394 IPC and sentenced them as under:-

(I) to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment under Section 447 IPC ;

(II) to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC ; and (III) to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 394 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that upon an incident having taken place in the midnight of 19/20.1.1981, wherein Saroj, the wife of PW-1 Ram Adhar had died, a First Information Report was got lodged on 20.1.1981 at 11:15 AM by Ramadhar Singh. The case as has been taken in FIR is that while Ramadhar Singh and his wife were asleep in their house on the first floor in the midnight of 19/20.1.1981, four miscreants entered the house. In the FIR, a complete detail has been given as to who and where people were sleeping on the ground floor. It has been stated that the mother of the first informant Smt. Bilasiya and his sister Shyama Bai were sleeping in the eastern side of the ground floor and when there was some noise from the roof of the first floor, then the mother and wife of the first informant woke up. When the wife of the first informant reached the place from where the noise was coming, the four miscreants, who were carrying firearms, fired upon the neck of the deceased and the deceased, who was wife of the first informant fell down on the empty cot, which was lying over there. Upon her falling down, one of the miscreants took out from the neck of his wife a piece of jewellery (panch moharo ka gajra, sone ka). After the incident had taken place, PW-1 Ramadhar ran towards the miscreants and tried to catch hold of them and when he had caught hold of one of the miscreants, the others, with the butts of their guns started beating the PW-1. However, upon a hue and cry being raised by the first informant, his two brothers namely, Moti Lal Singh and Heera Lal Singh came armed with their guns and started firing upon the miscreants. When the guns were fired, upon hearing the sounds of the firearms, Ramraj Singh and Valle Singh also came with their validly licensed guns. Upon this, the miscreants jumped out from the eastern side of the house. While they were running away, the two brothers of the first informant alongwith Valle Singh and Ramraj Singh and others, who had assembled at the place of incident saw them running away. However, since the miscreants were firing upon the collected crowd, no one dared to further run towards them and catch hold of them. It has further been stated in the FIR that the miscreants had covered their faces with a piece of cloth (angauchha). In the scuffle which followed the firing, the three persons who had covered their faces with the pieces of cloths, could not hold their coverings back and the coverings fell away and, therefore, the first informant recognized them as Jageshwar Singh, son of Prahlad Singh, Vichitra Singh son of Baijnath Singh and Sriman, son of Jageshwar Singh. He has stated that he recognized the three miscreants fairly well in the light which was coming out from the lantern and the moon light. He has stated that his brothers had also recognized the three miscreants while they were running away. They were seen by the brothers and the others, who were collected at the place of incident in the lights of torches and in the moon light. The fourth miscreant whom the first informant had not recognized, had been described as a young man with an average built wearing dhoti, kurta and sadri. He

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