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
| 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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.