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

2023 Supreme(Online)(All) 18621

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J
Ram Gopal alias Guddu – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2362 of 2018 | Criminal Appeal No. 1993 of 2018 | Criminal Appeal No. 2242 of 2018



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Arun Sinha, Sri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra
For the Respondents: Sri Arunendra

The court reinforces that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if deemed truthful, voluntary, and corroborated by reliable evidence.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 302 - Conviction and sentencing of accused for life imprisonment and associated penalties for conspiracy and culpable homicide - Statement of victim taken as basis for understanding involvement of accused - Court concludes that sufficient evidence supports judicial findings. (Paras 1, 12, 59)

(B) Dying Declaration - Legal recognition and reliance on the victim's statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and its admissibility under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act discussed - Distinction made between first-hand vs. secondary witness accounts, underlining importance of immediate, reliable testimony in serious injury cases. (Paras 28, 46, 68)

(C) Evidence Assessment - Court examines witness inconsistencies but affirms that discrepancies do not necessarily undermine the victim's testimony, thus establishing its relevance for conviction. (Paras 26, 29, 50)

(D) Findings of the Court: The trial court found the testimonies credible, ruling that there was mutual corroboration between the victim's statement and accounts from credible eyewitnesses, leading to the conclusion that the accused had orchestrated the crime. (Paras 46, 48, 59) (E)

Issues: The primary considerations included the assessment of dying declarations, eyewitness account reliability and the implications of inconsistent statements on evidential value. (Paras 8, 37, 70) (F)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that despite inconsistencies in witness statements, the victim's declaration was credible and admissible, enabling conviction without additional corroborating evidence. (Paras 12, 68) (G)

Result: Appeals dismissed; the original judgment of conviction upheld, with specific orders on imprisonment reinstated for appeals filed by the accused. (Paras 69)

Table of Content
1. overview of the appeals filed. (Para 1 , 4)
2. details of the incident and initial investigation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 28)
3. relevant procedural steps in criminal proceedings. (Para 8 , 9 , 11)
4. court's treatment of victim statements as dying declarations. (Para 12 , 16 , 26)
5. arguments addressing the reliability of witness testimonies. (Para 14 , 15 , 37)
6. court analysis of testimonies and final adjudication. (Para 66 , 68)
7. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 69 , 70)

1. The present criminal appeal No. 2362 of 2018 has been filed on behalf of appellant - Ram Gopal alias Guddu under S.374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 24.10.2018 passed by Mukesh Kumar Singh, Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge Anti Corruption, Court No. 6, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 1042 of 2010 (State v. Ram Gopal alias Guddu), arising out of Case Crime No. 168 of 2010, under S.147, S.302 IPC, Police Station Hasanganj, District Lucknow, convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo imprisonment for two years under S.147 IPC and further convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- under S.302 read with 34 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo a further period of three months additional imprisonment in addition.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 1993 of 2018 has been filed on behalf of appellant - Munnu Pandit alias Mahesh Kumar against the judgment and order dated 24.10.2018 whereby the appellant - Munnu Pandit alias Mahesh has been convicted and sentenced as above.

3. Criminal appeal No. 2242 of 2018 has been filed on behalf of appellants, Pappu, Mangla, Smt. Radha and Kamla Devi against the judgment and order dated 24.10.2018 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as above.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 24.10.2018, the accused - appellants have preferred the aforesaid three appeals. Since, common factual matrix and law involved in the aforementioned appeals and they have been filed against the same impugned judgment, therefore, they are being decided by a common order.

5. Wrapping the facts in brief is that the complainant of the case Lal Ji lodged an FIR to the effect that on 25.04.2010 Ram Gopal alias Guddu, Pappu Sons of Mahavir, Mangla daughter of Mahavir, Munnu Pandit and wives of Guddu alias Ram Gopal and Pappu called and carried his mother to the house of accused - Ram Gopal alias Guddu and sprinkling kerosene oil upon her, set her ablaze. Her mother was badly injured. He admitted his mother in serious condition in Civil Hospital, Hazaratganj, Lucknow with the assistance of his neighbours. Neighbours Shravan Kumar Dixit S/o Ramesh Chandra Dixit, Sanjay Kumar S/o Laddan Gupta and my wife Ramawati Devi had seen the whole incident and tried to save his mother. On hue and cry, many of his neighbours gathered at the place of occurrence. His mother is hospitalized and later on died due to injuries caused by the accused persons.

6. On the basis of written report, a Case Crime No. 168 of 2010, under S.307 IPC, Police Station Hasanganj, District Luck - now was registered on 25.04.2010 and after the death of injured Durga Devi again a written information was given by the complainant to the police station that his mother died due to injuries caused by the accused.

7. Autopsy of the deceased was conducted by Hasanganj police and on the same day, the deceased was sent for getting postmortem through Constable Chandra Kumar, Police Station Hazaratganj, Lucknow. The fact is recorded in 'Nakal Rapat' No. 49 at 20:50 dated 01.05.2010, along with necessary papers, memo, copy of GD, copy of report, photo - nash, Chalannash, namuna nash. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of injured Smt. Durga Devi and prepared the site plan and after collecting the sufficient evidences against the accused, filed charge sheet No. 162 of 2010 in the Court concerned.

8. The Magistrate concerned had taken cognizance of th

























































































































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