Skip to main content

Rameshwar vs state of Uttar Pradesh

 Rameshwar vs state of Uttar Pradesh

Facts:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC), police station Bharthana, district Etawah, convicting them, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing for imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10000/- each, with default stipulation.

3. On the written complaint (Ex-Ka-1) of Ram Autar (PW-1), FIR (Ex-Ka-4) of Case Crime No. 29 of 2006 was registered under Section 302 IPC, at P.S. Bharthana, district Etawah on 17.02.2006 at 8:15 hours, by Constable Moharrir Naresh Singh (PW-5), against Vinod, Sajjan Singh, Manoj @ Banti and Rameshwar Dayal. It has been stated in the FIR that the informant was resident of village Nagla Gaja, P.S. Bharthana. Yesterday on 16.02.2006, the informant was Irrigating water in his field. Arvind Singh son of Baburam, resident of Banamai, his brother-in-law (sala), was also with him. At that time, his brother Raj Kumar @ Raju came there and saying that he was going to village Belahar, for doing a telephone call, went from there by his cycle. When his brother reached near the field of Brij Mohan at village Belahar at about 6:30 PM, then Vinod, Sajjan Singh, Manoj @ Banti sons of Rameshwar Dayal and Rameshwar Dayal son of Subedar, residents of his village, who were sitting in the field of Brij Mohan and waiting for chance to attack, came out. Vinod and Manoj @ Banti were armed with gun, Sajjan was armed with short gun and Rameshwar was armed with axe. Looking to his brother, all of them came running. Rameshwar exhorted, while abusing, that he would not be spared and kill him. Raj Kumar returned toward him while shouting. In the meantime, they fired upon his brother, which caused injury on the body of his brother. The informant, his brother-in-law Arvind and one or two other persons, reached there while running. Then the accused fled away towards Belahar, threatening that in case, they would go to the police station, then they would look them in the way. His brother was lying dead on the spot. Due to terror of the accused, he did not come in night for information. After lodging report, legal action be taken against the accused.

4. After lodging of FIR, SHO Ram Nandan Tyagi (PW-7) started investigation. He copied the check FIR, G.D. entry in case diary and recorded statements of Naresh Singh, Bhagwan Das and Ram Autar. He came on the spot, took into possession the blood stained and plain earth from the spot and prepared its recovery memo (Ex-Ka-6). He made spot inspection, on the pointing out of the informant and prepared site-plan (Ex-Ka-7). He recorded statements of Udayveer Singh and Sanjay, Panches of Inquest. He recorded statements of Arvind Singh, SI V.D. Umrao and Constable Hari Prasad on 18.02.2006. He copied the Inquest and Postmortem reports in case diary. He searched the accused but they could not be arrested. On 09.03.2006, he took proceeding under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. to procure attendance of the accused. In the meantime, he was transferred.

In supervision of SHO Ram Nandan Tyagi (PW-7), SI V.B. Umrao conducted Inquest (Ex-Ka-8) of the dead body on 17.02.2006 in between 10:00 AM to 14:00 PM. He prepared photo lash, challan lash, letters to the authorities etc. (Ex-Ka-9 to Ex-Ka-12) for postmortem and dispatched the dead body through Constables Hari Prakash and Mahavir Singh. Dr. P.K. Gupta (PW-3) conducted autopsy of the dead body on 17.02.2006 at 4:00 PM and prepared Postmortem Report (Ex-Ka-2), in which following ante-mortem injuries were noted:-

  1. Fire arm wound of entry 2 cm x 2 cm on the right side of head 3 cm from right ear. Margins inverted. Blackening present.

  2. Fire arm wound of exit size 2.5 cm x 2 cm on the left side of face and head. Margins everted. Parietal, frontal and Occipital bones are fractured.

  3. Fire arm wound of entry 2 cm x 2 cm on the right side of chest 3 cm from nipple. Margins inverted, blackening present.

(iv) Fire arm wound of entry 2 cm x 2 cm on the right side of chest, 2.5 cm from injury no. (iii). Margins inverted. Blackening present.

  1. Fire arm wound of entry 2 cm x 2 cm on the right side of chest. 4.5 cm from injury no. (iv). Margins inverted. Blackening present.

In internal examination, brain and its membranes were lacerated; 3rd and 4th rib of right side was fractured; pleura was lacerated; both lungs were lacerated; heart was empty; about 1-1/2 liter clotted blood was present on the thoracic cavity; small intestine contained digested food and gas and large intestine contained faecal and gases. According to doctor’s opinion cause of death “due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries mentioned above”.

6. The successor SHO Ram Nath Singh Yadav started investigation from 15.03.2006. In spite of non-bailable warrants and the proceeding under Section 82 and 83 CR.P.C., the accused could not be arrested. He submitted charge sheet (Ex-Ka-13) during abscondance of the appellants on 28.06.2006.

7. In the meantime, investigation was transferred to Crime Branch, Central Investigation Department and Inspector Ramesh Singh Rathore (PW-8) started investigation from 23.08.2006. He took permission from the concerned Magistrate on 25.08.2006 for further investigation. He collected the relevant papers and recorded statement of Ram Autar and verified the site-plan. He recorded statements of the accused Rameshwar Dayal, Sajjan Singh and Manoj @ Banti on 26.08.2006. On 15.09.2006, he recorded statements of Satish Kumar, Pramod Kumar, Udayveer Singh, Rajendra Singh, Rajesh, Arvind, SI V.D. Umrao, constables Mahavir Singh, Hari Prakash and Naresh Singh. On 16.09.2006, he recorded statement of Dr. P.K. Gupta. On 19.09.2006, he copied the affidavit of the witnesses in case diary. On 28.09.2006, he recorded statement of Ram Nandan Tyagi. On 10.10.2006, he recorded statements of Rajiv Singh, Pramod Kumar, Arvind, Ram Autar. On 23.11.2006, he recorded statements of Ramvir, Sitaram and Suresh Chandra. On 28.11.2006, he recorded statement of Bhagwandas. On 06.12.2006, he recorded statement of Vinod Yadav. On 15.12.2006, he recorded statements of Deepak Goel, Radhey Shyam Verma, Ravi Jain, Manoj and Satish Parasar. On 18.01.2007, he sent blood stained and plain earth, the pilot and clothes of the deceased for chemical examination. After completing investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the appellants on 22.03.2007, holding that there was no error in previous investigation.

8. On committal, the cases were registered as S.T. No. 13 of 2008, State Vs. Vinod and others and S.T. No. 100 of 2008, State Vs. Rameshwar. Both the cases were consolidated and tried together. Additional Session’s Judge framed charges on 04.07.2008, against Vinod, Sajjan Singh and Manoj @ Banti. Additional Session’s Judge framed charges on 26.08.2008, against Rameshwar Dayal. The accused pleaded “not guilty” and claimed for trial. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined Ram Autar (PW-1), the informant, Arvind Singh (PW-2), an eye witness, Dr. P.K. Gupta (PW-3), to prove Postmortem Report (Ex-Ka-2), Pramod Kumar (PW-4), an eye witness, Constable Naresh Singh (PW-5), to prove check FIR, Udayveer Singh (PW-6), a Panch of Inquest, SI Ram Nandan Tyagi (PW-7), first Investigating Officer, Inspector Ramesh Singh Rathore (PW-8) third Investigating Officer and filed documentary evidence.

 

9. All the incriminatory materials and facts were put to the accused, under Section 313 CrPC. They denied the evidence and materials and claimed false implication, due to enmity. They did not adduce any evidence, in defence.

 

10. Additional Session’s Judge, after hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment held that delay in lodging FIR has been explained properly. Litigation in respect of land was going on between the parties and such the motive is proved. From the statements of Ram Autar, Arvind Singh and Pramod Kumar (PWs-1, 2 and 3), the charges against the appellants have been proved. On these findings, he convicted the appellants and sentenced as mentioned above. Hence, these appeals have been filed.

 

11. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution has examined Ram Autar, Arvind Singh and Pramod Kumar (PWs-1, 2 and 3) as the eye witnesses of the incident. Ram Autar (PW-1) has stated that he and his brother-in-law Arvind were irrigating his field, on the date of incident. At that time, his brother Raj Kumar @ Raju came there and told that he was going to village Belahar, for doing a telephone call. It was about 5:45 PM, Raju went towards Belahar. As soon as, he reached near the field of Brij Mohan then Vinod, Sajjan Singh, Manoj @ Banti and Rameshwar Dayal met him. All the aforesaid accused are present in the Court. Vinod and Manoj @ Banti were armed with the gun, Sajjan was armed with a short gun and Rameshwar was armed with axe. They opened fire upon his brother. Due to gunshot injuries, his brother died on the spot at about 5:45 to 6:00 PM. Hearing the sound, he, his brother-in-law Arvind and the villagers Raju and Pramod and others, reached the spot and saw the incident. The accused threatened that in case, they would go to lodge FIR, then they would kill them. On his dictation Bhagwandas scribed the complaint, which he gave to the police station on which FIR has been registered. Investigating Officer has recorded his statements and on his pointing out, inspected the spot.


12. No other point has been argued before us. In view of the afore-stated findings, we find mat the prosecution has successfully proved its case against each appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not erred in returning guilty verdict The deceased was done to death in broad day light by the accused-appellants sharing common intention on account of election rivalry. The appeal sans merits and is accordingly dismissed. All the appellants are on bail. Steps should immediately be taken to take them into custody and sent to jail to serve out the sentence imposed upon each of them by the learned trial Court.


13. Let certified copy of the judgement be transmitted to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly and the Court concerned for compliance which should be reported within 4-weeks from today.


14. Appeal dismissed
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more