2024-02-15
Subject:
O R D E R
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant(s), the Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court, who appears for the appellant - Sangram Singh, and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and informant at some length.
Initially, we had some doubts about the deposition of two eye- witnesses, namely, Gulzari Lal (PW-1) and Kamlapat Rai (PW-2) on account of the discrepancy in their deposition, and the inquest report (marked Exhibit – Ka-5) on the place where the dead body of Sunil Kumar was lying. There were arguments in respect of Form No.XIII (marked Exhibit – Ka-8), which bears the date 27.09.1993, whereas Chhavi Lal/Chhabi Lal (PW-4) had stated that he had taken the dead body of Sunil Kumar to the Medical College at Jhansi on 26.09.1993 at around 6.00-7.00 p.m. The same was kept in the mortuary that night, and the postmortem was conducted on 27.09.1993.
We must express our grave concern that the English translation of Exhibit – Ka-5, is not the accurate and true translation of the original inquest report, which is in Hindi. On reading the Hindi translation, we are satisfied that the dead body of Sunil Kumar was lying in front of point ‘A’, that is, the house of Kamlapat Rai (PW-2). The inquest report also refers to Form – XIII. Therefore, we accept and believe the testimony of Chhavi Lal/Chhabi Lal (PW-4) that he had taken the dead body of Sunil Kumar to the Medical College at Jhansi on 26.09.1993.
Once the aforesaid factual position is accepted, we would believe the deposition of Gulzari Lal (PW-1) and Kamlapat Rai (PW- 2), who were the eye-witnesses to the occurrence, and have deposed as to the presence of the appellants, namely, Meher Sagar, Mehar Sahai, Jagbir Singh and Hari Singh @ Babli. Their depositions also refer to the presence of Khalak Singh, but we make no comments in this regard as Khalak Singh is not an appellant before us.
For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present appeals as well as the special leave petitions and hence, the same are dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
..................J.
(SANJIV KHANNA)
..................J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 15, 2023.
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1536-1537/2021 MEHER SAGAR & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondent(s)
(IA No. 73182/2023 - GRANT OF BAIL IA No. 69432/2023 - GRANT OF BAIL IA No. 145528/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 136486/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
WITH SLP(Crl) No. 9587/2018 (II)
(IA No. 160551/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(Crl) No. 10949/2018 (II)
(IA No. 162119/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 177444/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 177442/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 15-02-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA For Appellant(s) Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR Mr. Kailash Prashad Pandey, AOR Mr. Lakhan Singh Chouhan, Adv.
Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Singh Dingra, Adv.
Mr. Akhlieshwar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Neeraj Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T.r, AOR Mr. Likhichand Bonsle, Adv.
Mr. Rahat Bansal, Adv. Mr. Varun Mudgal, Adv.
Mr. Rishi Malhotra, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR Mr. Arup Banerjee, AOR Ms. Pooja Singh., Adv.
Mr. Ghanshyam Singh., Adv.
Mr. Prakash Sharma., Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma., Adv.
Ms. Arunima Shrivastava., Adv.
Mr. Priyanshu Raj., Adv.
Mr. R.K.dey., Adv.
Mr. Rupak Srivastava., Adv.
Mr. D.d.sharma., Adv.
Mr. Kamal Pundir, Adv.
Mr. Kartikeya Bhargava, AOR UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeals and special leave petitions are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(BABITA PANDEY) (R.S. NARAYANAN)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
Family Judge Exposes Weaponized Litigation in Custody Dispute
14 Feb 2026
Centre Notifies Two High Court Chief Justice Appointments
16 Feb 2026
Deep Chandra Joshi Appointed Acting NCLT President
16 Feb 2026
Debunking the Myth That Indians Lack Privacy Concepts
16 Feb 2026
Whose View Is It Anyway? Juniors Uncredited
16 Feb 2026
Private Property Disputes Not Human Rights Violations; HRC Lacks Jurisdiction Under PHRA: Gujarat HC
16 Feb 2026
Supreme Court Rejects Stay on RTI Data Amendments
16 Feb 2026
DIFC Court: Strong Reasons Required to Block Arbitration
17 Feb 2026
Bar Leaders Oppose High Courts Saturday Sittings
17 Feb 2026
Conviction based on eyewitness testimony was quashed due to significant investigative failures, including lack of weapon recovery and forensic analysis, undermining the prosecution's case.
Though test identification parade is not a substantive piece of evidence, at times, it adds strength to case of prosecution by giving more credibility to statements of eye witnesses which is grossly ....
The prosecution must provide sufficient evidence linking the accused to the crime; statements of a deceased cannot be used to implicate others in unrelated deaths.
The authenticity of a dying declaration must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and discrepancies in attestation and the condition of the deceased can cast doubt on its reliability.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of collectively considering the testimonies of eye-witnesses and the admissibility of evidence in establishing guilt in a criminal c....
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.