ANIL YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(ALL)-2022-6-56
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on June 29,2022

ANIL YADAV Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. Respondents




JUDGEMENT

SAROJ YADAV, J. - (1.)This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the convict/appellant Anil Yadav, against the judgment and order dtd. 23/12/2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/FTC IV, (Room No. 13), Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No. 284 of 2005, whereby the convict/appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short I.P.C.) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life coupled with a fine of Rs.5,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to further imprisonment of six months. The convict/appellant was also held guilty and sentenced under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act in Sessions Trial No. 285 of 2005 whereby he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of two years coupled with fine of Rs.1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to further imprisonment of three months.
(2.)The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal shorn of unnecessary details are as under:
(i) A First Information Report (in short FIR) was registered at Case Crime No. 308 of 2005, under Sec. 302 of I.P.C. at Police Station Jaisingh pur, District Sultanpur, on the basis of written report presented by the complainant Vinod Yadav. It was described in the written report that on 13/6/2005 his father Asha Ram was coming back after leaving Ram Jagpal at his house and he (complainant) was coming to his home after visiting his sugarcane field. Anil and Sanjay, resident of the same village were sitting on culvert with sticks in their hands. At about 7-7:15 PM when his father reached near the culvert Anil assaulted his father on his hand, due to which his father fell down, then Anil and Sanjay both fired upon his father with country made pistols (tamanchas). He raised a loud cry then many persons of village came there then Anil and Sanjay ran away from the spot. His father sustained fire arm injury in his chest. He was carried to hospital where doctors declared him brought dead. The dead body was kept in the hospital.

(ii) On the FIR lodged, the police of concerned police station came into action and investigation started. Inquest report of the dead body was prepared, and the dead body was sent for postmortem along with necessary police papers. During investigation both the accused persons surrendered in the Court on 24/6/2005. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the accused persons in jail after taking permission of the Court, wherein the accused persons stated that they might get the weapons recovered, used for committing the crime. The Investigating Officer applied for the police custody remand which was allowed. The accused persons were remanded in police custody on 30/6/2005 for 24 hours. During police custody remand the weapons of offence were recovered at the pointing out of the accused persons alongwith live and empty cartridges. The case was registered against the accused persons under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act, at Case Crime No. 339 of 2005 against accused Anil Yadav and at Case Crime No. 340 of 2005 against Sanjay Yadav, under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act.

(iii) After investigation chargesheet No. 47 of 2005 in Case Crime No. 308 of 2005 of I.P.C. (Exhibit Ka-27) was submitted in the Court. The Chargesheet No. 48 of 2005 in Case Crime No. 339 of 2005 under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act against accused Anil Yadav (Exhibit Ka-31) was also submitted before the Magistrate concerned. After taking cognizance on the chargesheets submitted the Magistrate concerned committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The Sessions Court framed charge under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of I.P.C. The accused persons denied the crime and claimed to be tried. The charge under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act was also framed against both the accused persons. Both the accused denied the charge framed under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act also and claimed to be tried.

(iv) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined nine witnesses in toto, which are as under:-

1. P.W. 1 Vinod Kumar Yadav, the complainant.

2. P.W. 2 Om Prakash, the witness of Panchayatnama.

3. P.W.3 Ram Jagpal, the witness of the recovery of weapon of offence at the pointing out of the accused persons.

4. P.W.4 Dr. C.P. Rawat, Senior Consultant of District Hospital, Sultanpur, who conducted autopsy of the dead body of Asha Ram.

5. P.W. 5 Syed Alamdar Hussain Rizvi, Police Inspector, who prepared Panchayatnama of the dead body of Asha Ram and sent the same for postmortem alongwith necessary papers.

6. P.W.6 Head Constable Police, Durga Prasad, who wrote the chick FIR and prepared the concerned G.D.

7. P.W. 7 Mr. S.K. Ram, Investigating Officer of Case Crime No. 308 of 2005.

8. P.W. 8 Sub Inspector Hari Shankar Prajapati, who accompanied with Station Officer S.K. Ram when the weapon of offence were recovered at the pointing out of the accused persons.

9. P.W 9 Sub Inspector Shambu Sharavan Singh, Investigating Officer of Case Crime No. 399 of 2005 and Case Crime No. 340 of 2005 both under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act.

(v) Apart from above witnesses the prosecution also proved the necessary documents which are as under:-

1. Exhibit Ka-1 written report.

2. Exhibit Ka-2 Panchayatnama.

3. Exhibit Ka-3 recovery memo of recovery of weapons of offence.

4. Exhibit Ka-4 postmortem report.

5. Exhibit Ka-5 information sent to police station from hospital about the dead body.

6. Exhibit Ka-6 specimen seal.

7. Exhibit Ka-7 letter to Reserve Inspector.

8. Exhibit Ka-8 letter to C.M.O.

9. Exhibit Ka-9 Photonash (Police Form No. 379)

10.Exhibit Ka-10 details of sending the dead body for postmortem.

11.Exhibit Ka-11 carbon copy of concerned G.D. dtd. 13/6/2005.

12. Exhibit Ka-12 Chick FIR.

13. Exhibit Ka-13 carbon copy of Kayami GD.

14. Exhibit Ka-14 Chick FIR of Case Crime No. 339 of 2005 and Case Crime No. 340 of 2005.

15. Exhibit Ka-15 Site plan of the place of occurrence.

16. Exhibit Ka-16 carbon copy of recovery memo.

17. Exhibit Ka-17 to 24 photographs relating to recovery of weapons of offence.

18. Exhibit Ka-25 'Nakal Rapat' No. 24 at 15:10 hours dtd. 30/6/2005.
19. Exhibit Ka-26 Site plan of the place of recovery of weapon of offence prepared at the time of recovery.
20. Exhibit Ka-27 chargesheet of Case Crime No. 308 of 2005.

21. Exhibit Ka-28 letter to Forensic Science Laboratory.

22. Exhibit Ka-29 Site plan of the place of recovery of weapon of offence prepared by the Investigating Officer.

23. Exhibit Ka-30 prosecution sanction for prosecution of the accused persons under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act.

24. Exhibit Ka-31 chargesheet of Case Crime No. 339 of 2005, under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act.

25. Exhibit Ka-32 report of Forensic Science Laboratory.

26. Exhibit Ka-33 report of Forensic Science Laboratory.

(vi) After recording of evidence learned trial Court declared accused Sanjay Juvenile and sent his case before the Juvenile Justice Board for trial. Thereafter the statement of concivt/appellant Anil was recorded under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.), wherein he denied the crime and also the recovery of weapon of offence. He further stated that witnesses have deposed falsely and the case has been registered against him due to enmity. He has further stated that the deceased was killed somewhere else by someone else in the dark of the night and he has been implicated due to enmity of parcenery (pattidari). One witness Suresh was also examined by the convict/appellant in his defence.

(vii) After completion of evidence, hearing the arguments of both the sides and analysing the evidence available on record the learned trial court found the evidence of eye witness P.W.1 trustworthy and the ocular evidence consistent with the medical evidence. Learned trial court also found proved that weapon of offence was recovered at the pointing out of the convict/appellant and all the necessary facts and circumstances were proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and found the convict/appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 302/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment coupled with fine noted herein above. (para 2(iii))

(viii) Learned trial court also found proved the offence under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced the convict/appellant for the offence.

(ix) Being aggrieved of this conviction and sentence the present appeal has been preferred by the convict/appellant.

(3.)Heard Shri Manish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Smiti Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the respondent State.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.