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

2017 Supreme(Online)(All) 125

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Unknown, J
Nand Lal Yadav @ Nanda – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
S.T. No. 499 of 2006 | Case Crime no. 315 of 2004



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Sri Chandra Jeet Yadav
For the Respondents: Sri Saghir Ahmad, Sri J. K. Upadhyay, Sri Irfan Chaudhary, Sri Syed Hasan Shaukat Abidi

Motive is not essential for conviction in murder cases if direct and credible eyewitness testimony is present.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 34 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Conviction for murder - Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC with life sentence and fine - Prosecution failed to prove motive but direct evidence was sufficient for conviction - Testimonies of eyewitnesses reliable despite minor inconsistencies and presence of close relations - Conviction under Section 34 IPC set aside due to acquittal of co-accused. (Paras 2, 8, 42)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering Laxman Yadav by firing a licensed gun, allegedly orchestrated due to a dispute over water discharge from a hand pump. The incident occurred on October 2, 2004, in a busy market where several witnesses were present. Witness testimonies, although close relatives, supported the prosecution. (Paras 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder as described in the FIR, with direct witness accounts corroborating the events despite minor discrepancies. (Paras 18, 23)

Issues: The primary question was whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt without clear motive. Also addressed was the reliability of eyewitness testimonies amidst claimed inconsistencies. (Paras 11, 24)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that motive is not essential when direct evidence is credible. Eyewitness accounts were accepted despite being relations of the deceased, and minor discrepancies are not grounds to discredit testimony. (Paras 34, 41)

Result: Appeal allowed partially; conviction under Section 34 IPC is set aside as there was no common intention established among co-accused. Appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments regarding credibility of evidence. (Para 9 , 10 , 23 , 25)
3. court's analysis of evidence and witness credibility. (Para 11 , 12 , 18 , 21 , 31)
4. establishes that motive is not essential in direct evidence. (Para 24 , 36 , 41)
5. final decision on conviction and sentencing. (Para 42 , 43)

1. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla assisted by Sri Chandra Jeet Yadav learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Saghir Ahmad, Sri J. K. Upadhyay, Sri Irfan Chaudhary and Sri Syed Hasan Shaukat Abidi learned AGA in opposition.

2. Appellant Nand Lal Yadav @ Nanda has preferred this appeal under S.374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 12.6.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Court no. 5, Azamgarh in S.T. No. 499 of 2006 (State vs. Nand Lal @ Nanda and three others), by which the appellant has been convicted under S.302 read with S.34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000 / and in default of payment of fine two months additional imprisonment.

3. The facts of this case in brief are that the complainant Hira Lal Yadav, son of Shobhnath, resident of villageSiswa, Post Bacchwal, P.S. Mehnagar, districtAzamgarh gave a written complainant (Ext.Ka1) at police stationMehnagar, districtAmazgarh on 02.10.2004 at about 6:30 p.m., stating therein that his father's elder brother, Laxman Yadav, son of Barkhandi Yadav, resident of villageSiswa was sitting in front of the house of one Adalat Nat, son of Jagga Nat on 02.10.2004 along with Shivpujan Yadav, son of late. Judawan Yadav and Kamlesh Yadav, son of Raghunath Yadav who are the residents of same village and making preparations for smoking tobacco. At about 5:45 p.m. accused Nand Lal Yadav @ Nanda Yadav armed with the licensed gun of his uncle Triveni Yadav, son of Sahbali Yadav, came to the place where Laxman Yadav was sitting, on a motorcycle along with his two companions and fired at him with the licensed single barrel gun as a result of which Laxman Yadav died on the spot. At the time of incident large number of villagers including Ram Narayan Yadav, son of Satiram Yadav and Sudarshan Yadav, son of late. Markandey Yadav etc. were present at the place of incident and had witnessed the same. After shooting his father's brother Laxman Yadav, the accused Nand Lal Yadav ran towards south while his companions went towards Singhpur on the motorcycle. The murder of Laxman Yadav was orchestrated by one Triveni Yadav who along with the appellant suspected that on the advise of the deceased Laxman Yadav his cousin brother Bechan Yadav had stopped the work of laying the pipe line under the Kharanja which was being constructed under the B.D.C. quota for discharge of water of hand pump installed near the house of Nand Lal into the 'Pokhari' as proposed by him. On account of the aforesaid dispute Triveni Yadav got Laxman Yadav killed in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched by him with his nephew Nand Lal Yadav and his companions.

4. On the basis of the written complaint (Ext.Ka1) chek FIR (Ext.Ka2) was prepared and registered as Case Crime no. 315 of 2004 under S.302/34 and 120B I.P.C., P.S. Mehnagar, district Azamgarh (State vs. Nand Lal Yadav and others) and relevant G.D. entry was made vide rapat no. 38 on 02.10.2004 at 6:30 p.m., carbon copy whereof is on record as (Ext.Ka3). After registration of the case, the Investigating Officer PW4 Devendra Kumar Pathak swung into action and after copying the contents of F.I.R. in the case diary, he recorded the statement of the complainant Hira Lal Yadav. He conducted the inquest of the dead body of the deceased and prepared the inquest report in his own hand writing and the other related papers namely, Form 10 (Ext.Ka3 / 1), photonash (Ext.Ka4), letter addressed to R.I., C.M.O. and Medical Officer (Ext.Ka5, Ext.Ka6 and Ext.Ka7) respectively. He inspected the place of incident and prepared the site plan (Ext.Ka8). He also collected plain and bloo

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