The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC. The Court held that prosecution eye-witnesses were reliable, the accused defence was baseless, and the prosecution case was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Appeal dismissed; bail bonds cancelled; appellants directed to surrender to serve remainder sentence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(Judgment Reserved on 8.8.2019) (Judgment delivered on 26.8.2019)
Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1098 of 1987
Appellant :- Sampat And Others Respondent :- State Counsel for Appellant :- J.S. Senger,Brij Raj Singh,Indra Kumar Chaturvedi,Nand Lal Yadav,Prem Chandra,Raj Karan Yadav,Ramesh Chandra Yadav,Brij Gopal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J .
(Delivered by Hon.Pankaj Naqvi,J)
This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.12.1987 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Banda in S.T. No.362 of 1986 (Case Crime No.1193 of 19856) convicting the appellants to life under Section 302 IPC.
The prosecution case in brief is as under:-
P.W-1 on 13.9.1986 at around 9.30 AM was on way to Banda Hospital to take medicine along with Ram Sanehi (P.W2) who was to purchase grocery. Prem Prasad (deceased) brother of P.W-1 after performing his morning chores relating to live stock had gone to bathe in the compound of one Asharam Lohar while the other brother Chunnu (not examined) was also preparing himself for a bathe. The
2
moment Prem Prasad after hanging his kurta went towards the hand pump, P.W-1 and 2 heard call for exhortations that he i.e, Prem Prasad be not spared. P.W-1 and 2 turned back to see that accused Sampat and Harikishan armed with rifle, ChandraPal and Babulal with guns went near Prem Prasad, fired shots at him who fell down and succumbed at the spot. The accused after extending threats fled from the scene. P.W-1 further alleged that there is previous existing enmity with the accused.
3
4
including the identity of assailants. He further argued that although the case of prosecution is of firing from a distance of 14-15 steps at the deceased, yet sign of blackening and tattooing on injury no.5 creates a serious doubt as regards their presence at the scene, a case of false implication as witnesses are inimical in view of pending litigations.
5
compound. Point F is the place from where P.W-1/the brother of deceased and witnessed the occurrence.
6
enmity is a double edged sword which can be basis for false implication as well as also for committing the murder. It is equally well settled that testimony of an interested/inimical witness cannot be rejected out rightly, same is to examined with circumspection.
7
also on the ground that considering the width of the gate 6 feet and the height 8 feet, the height of the boundary would certainly be not less than the height of the gate making it an absolute impossibility for the witnesses to witness the assault and the identity of the assailants. Argument may look attractive but is devoid of merit, once the court carefully examins P.W-1. P.W-1 nowhere alleges that the gate was closed. Thus the argument that P.W-1 could not have witnessed the occurrence from the distance where he is alleged to have shown his presence, the contention is liable to be rejected. P.W-1 also states as to why in the first occasion he did not raise any warning as he feared his own life. Nothing could come out in his cross examination to doubt his credibility.
8
9
This conduct of remaining a mute spectator when FIR has come into existence on the day of occurrence itself nominating his father as an accused, belies his defence as an afterthought.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 RS
(Suresh Kumar Gupta,J) (Pankaj Naqvi,J)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution witnesses were credible given the topography and alleged enmity.
Whether the injuries on the deceased were consistent with firing from a distance.
Whether the defence regarding Ram Pratap being the actual perpetrator was credible.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sampat and others
State
Pankaj Naqvi
Suresh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
