LexHIRALAL PANDEY AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012) 3 S.C.R. 1066 HIRALAL PANDEY AND ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2008) 17 APRIL, 2012. [A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: c s.302134 - Two persons shot dead by three accused - Conviction and life imprisonment - Upheld by High Court - Held: The evidence of the son of one of the deceased that the accused fired at them when he and the two victims were going on a motorcycle was corroborated by another witness 0 who at the time of the incident reached there on a cycle along with others - The oral evidence was further supported by the medical evidence - Minor defects in investigation cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case, which has been proved beyond reasonable doubt through the evidence of two E eye-witnesses as supported by the medical evidence - Evidence. INVESTIGATION." Lapses - Held: Unless the lapses on the part of the F investigation are such as to cast reasonable doubt about the prosecution story or seriously prejudice the defence of the accused, the court will not set aside the conviction. The three appellants were prosecuted for murders of one 'RR' the father of the complainant (PW-1) and his G companion 'KBS'. The case of the prosecution was that when at about 6 p.m. on 22.9.1979, PW-1, his father and 'KBS' were going on a motorcycle being driven by 'KBS', the three appellants-accused fired at them as a result of which 'RR' and 'KBS' died at the spot. Meanwhile, PW-2 H 1066 HIRALAL PANDEY AND ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 1067 and some others reached the place of incident and all the A three accused ran away. The trial court convicted all the three accused u/s 302/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. The High Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence. In the instant appeal filed by the accused persons, it was, inter alia, contended for the appellants that the courts below should not have relied upon the evidence B of PWs-1 and 2 who were interested witnesses and the prosecution should have examined the independent witnesses cited in the FIR; that the time of recording of C FIR at the police chowki was doubtful as the FIR was first written by pencil which was erased and again overwritten as per the evidence of the constable (PW-4); that there was no recovery of empty cartridges from the place of occurrence and that the injuries on the dead bodies were D not correlated with the weapons allegedly possessed by the appellants. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. PW-1 has stated that he and his father E 'RR' were going on a motorcycle driven by 'KBS' when the incident took place at about 5-10 minutes before 6.00 p.m. From the narration of the incident by PW-1, it is very clear that he was present at the time of the occurrence and has seen the appellants with double barrel gun, single barrel gun and a rifle with cartridges. He has stated that when the appellants fired, 'KBS', who was driving the motorcycle, got scared by the firing and the motorcycle F got dis-balanced and came on the western strip of the road and he and his father jumped from the motorcycle G and ran but 'KBS' fell down along with motorcycle; that the appellants were firing continuously and his father ran towards paddy fields and he ran towards Harijan Basti; that after he returned to the spot he found that 'KBS' was lying dead by gun-shot on the road and his father was H 1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R. A lying dead by gun-shot in paddy fields. PW-1 has clearly disclosed that hearing the firing, 'SLS' and PW-2, who were coming on cycles reached there and 'LS' also reached there. The evidence of PW-1 could not have been doubted by either the trial court or the High Court. B [para 14) (1077-A-B; 1078-C-F; 1079-A] 1.2. The testimony of PW-2 supports the evidence of PW-1 in all material respects. He has said that as soon as the motorcycle fell, appellant 'S' went near 'KBS' and fired. He has also said that 'RR' fell down in the water- C filled paddy fields and when 'RR' tried to get up, appellants 'S' and 'H' reached there and fired while PW- 1 ran away. He has also disclosed that 'SL' and 'L' also reached the place of occurrence and shouted along with him not to fire and hearing this, the appellants ran away D from the spot. He has also said that after the incident, PW- 1 came on the spot along with 7-8 persons. PW-2 is, therefore, a direct eyewitness to th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.