Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit, JJ.
Rajveer Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Crimial Appeal No. 145 of 2014, Crimial Appeal No. 683 of 2019
Decided On : 24-07-2024
Criminal - Murder - IPC Sections 302, 307, 120-B - The court interpreted the provisions of IPC Sections 302 and 307 concerning murder and attempted murder, emphasizing the principle of common intention under Section 34, leading to the conviction of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were accused of murdering Mahipal Singh, a key witness in a previous murder case involving the appellants. The incident occurred when the appellants opened fire on Mahipal Singh and others, resulting in Mahipal's death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution's case proved beyond reasonable doubt based on the consistent testimonies of eyewitnesses, despite the defense's claims of inconsistencies and faulty investigation.
Issues: Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to convict the appellants for murder and attempted murder, and whether the investigation was flawed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presence of eyewitnesses and their consistent testimonies, along with the principle of common intention under Section 34 of IPC, justified the convictions despite claims of investigation flaws.
Result: The appeals were dismissed, affirming the convictions and sentences of the appellants.
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Purohit, J.
Criminal Appeal No.145 of 2014, Rajveer (Rajbeer) Singh Vs. State is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.02.2014, passed by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.98 of 2010 (old number) 991 of 2013 (new number), State Vs. Rajbeer Singh and others, whereby appellant-Rajbeer Singh was convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default stipulation further three months additional simple imprisonment.
2. Criminal Appeal No.683 of 2019 is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.10.2019, passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.274 of 2014 (Case Crime No.249 of 2005), State Vs. Rajbeer Singh and others, whereby the appellants Rambeer and Rambhajan were convicted under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of IPC and were sentenced for life imprisonment under Section 302/34 of IPC with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation of six months additional simple imprisonment and ten years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation of three months each and simple imprisonment under Section 307/34 of IPC.
3. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently and it is also directed that the period spent in jail by the appellants shall be set-off with the sentence imposed upon them.
4. Since both the trials have arisen out of one and the same FIR, therefore both the appeals are being decided together by this common judgment.
5. Case of the prosecution was set into motion, when an FIR (Ex.Ka-3) was lodged by PW2-Ramveer Singh in Police Station Jwalapur, Haridwar on 28.06.2005, wherein it has been stated that on 28.06.2005 informant left the house of Narendra Kumar for going to their home with his Uncle-Mahipal Singh and Nephew-Anil Kumar. As soon as they reached near Yaseen ka Bagh at about 08:15 hours, appellants came out of the garden and opened fire on them; Mahipal sustained one bullet and died on the spot, on the other hand informant and Anil had a narrow escape and on raising alarm they ran-away while the appellants also fled away from there. In the FIR, it was further averred that on 14.10.2003 appellants murdered six persons in the village and Mahipal Singh was a witness in that case; Ishwar Singh and his sons were accused in that case, which was pending in the court; Ishwar Singh was pressing upon them to withdraw the said criminal case and not to give evidence and threatened them wife life. The report of which was lodged by Sukhpal Singh in Police Station Babri, on 17.05.2005. It was stated in the FIR that after releasing on bail Ishwar Singh was conspiring to kill them.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a chick FIR was lodged in Police Station Jwalapur, Haridwar on 28.06.2005 against the appellants and a Case Crime/FIR No. 249 of 2005 under Sections 302, 307 and 120-B IPC was registered at Police Station Jwalapur, Haridwar.
7. After lodging of the FIR, the investigation ensued and inquest was drawn. On 28.06.2005 at 10:15 A.M. body of Mahipal Singh was sent for post-mortem; plain earth and blood stained earth were recovered from the spot and a memo (Ex. Ka-10) was prepared; from the spot two empty cartridges of 315 bore and one live cartridge were recovered and a memo to that effect was also prepared (Ex. Ka-11). A memo of taking possession of shoes and slippers (Ex. Ka-12) on the spot was also prepared. The site plan was drawn and finally after recording statement of the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC and after completion of investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants and one Ishwar Singh under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 120-B IPC.
8. After committal of the case by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar to learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar charges were framed against the appellant-Rajbeer Singh under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 120-B IPC. Similar charges were framed against the appellant-Rambeer Sin
The court established that common intention under Section 34 of IPC suffices for conviction in murder cases, even with a single fatal injury.
(1) Fact that trial/appeal should have taken years and that other accused should have died during appeal cannot be a ground for acquittal of Appellant.(2) In a criminal trial, credible evidence of ev....
Point of law: Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting ....
Acquittal justified where prosecution evidence suffers contradictions in eyewitness accounts, lack of corroboration for key allegations like firing, non-examination of Investigating Officer and docto....
The court established that eyewitness testimony from related witnesses can be credible and sufficient for conviction, provided it is consistent and corroborated by other evidence, and that the absenc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and contradictions and doubts in the evidence can lead to the f....
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
