The Allahabad High Court has dismissed three criminal appeals arising out of a 1982 murder case and affirmed the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court in 1983, bringing to a close litigation that remained pending for over four decades.
A Division Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi upheld the judgment dated November 17, 1983, passed in Sessions Trial convicting the accused under various provisions of the IPC, including Sections 302/149, 307, 324, 323, 148 and 147.
The case related to the murder of a person on August 10, 1982, near Dak Kothi, Haridwar. According to the prosecution, the deceased was intercepted by a group of accused armed with guptis, knives, a bicycle chain and a country-made pistol. The assailants allegedly attacked him with sharp-edged weapons, causing fatal injuries. He succumbed to his injuries while being taken to hospital.
The High Court found that the prosecution case stood firmly established through the testimony of eyewitnesses. The Court observed that the presence of the eyewitnesses at the scene was fully proved and their testimony was reliable and trustworthy.
Rejecting the appellants’ contention regarding non-recovery of the weapons allegedly used in the crime, the Court reiterated that recovery of the murder weapon is not a sine qua non for conviction when the prosecution case is otherwise proved by credible ocular and medical evidence.
The Bench also held that the prosecution case could not be doubted merely because independent witnesses were not examined, particularly when the testimony of the eyewitnesses and injured witness inspired confidence.
“
“It is settled law that the evidence of an injured witness could not be doubted and rejected if, after deep and proper scrutiny of the evidence, it is found that the injured witness has received injury during the commission of the crime by the accused-appellants and there is no major inconsistency or improvement in the evidence of the injured witness, and also his presence at the place of occurrence is proved, then the evidence of the injured eye-witness could be wholly reliable and acceptable for the conviction of the accused-appellants for the commission of the alleged crime.”
Finding no infirmity or perversity in the trial court’s appreciation of evidence, the Court held that the accused had formed an unlawful assembly and, in prosecution of their common object, assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons.
Consequently, the Court affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. Noting that the appellants had earlier been granted bail during the pendency of the appeals but were later arrested pursuant to non-bailable warrants, the Court directed that they shall remain in jail to serve out the sentences imposed upon them.
Cases referred
Rakesh and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2021) 7 SCC 188
Nankaunoo vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2016) 3 SCC 317