LexJAGDJSH NARAIN AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A JAGDJSH NARAIN AND ANR. v. .. ' STATE OF U.P. MARCH 12, 1996 B [DR. A.S. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] Indian Penal Code, 1860: Ss. 148, 302/34, 3021149-Five persons accused of murdel'-Acquittal c; by trial court-Appeal-Two accused died pending appeaHiigh Court ac- quitting one of the accused and convicting remaining two under ss.148 and 302/149-Held, High Court not right in recording conviction under ss.148 and 302/149-Conviction u/s. 148 set aside-Conviction u/s.3021149 altered to one under s. 302/34. D Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Ss. 157, 161, 162, 379--0ffence of murdel'-Site plan prepared by .J, Investigating Officer-Place from where shots fired not shown in site ~- plan-Held, investigation cannot be faulted on this ground, because investigat- ing officer was not a wimess to incide/lf and had he shown the place after E ascertaining from witnesses, it would have been hit by s.162. Evidence Act, 1872 : S.60-Site plan prepared by bivestigating Office,._collfents of-Eviden- tiary value-Explainted. t F "' Appellant No. 1, alongwith his two sons and two friends, one or them being appellant No. 2, was tried for rioting and murder or his step brother, the father of PW. 1. The prosecution case was that on the date of incident while PW. 1, his father and a servant (PW. 2) were carrying sugarcane in G a bullock cart, on their way to the mill, the five accused armed with deadly weapons including guns waylaid them. Appellant No. 1 fired a shot at the father of PW. 1 who was following the cart on foot and was also carrying ,..., a gun. The victim fell down and on the exhortation of the two sons of appellant No.1, appellant No. 2 fired a short hitting the victim. Thereafter the miscreants Red away along with the gum of the deceased. PW. 1 lodged H the F.I.R. whereupon a case was registered and PW. 6 commenced the 250 JAG DISH NARAIN v. STATE 251 investigation, which culminated in the trial of the five accused. A fhe trial court acquitted the accused holding inter alia that there were contradictions in the evidence of the eye witnesses and their state- ments recorded under s.161 Cr.P.C. and that the investigation was faulty since the investigating officer did not show in the site plan the place from where the shots were fired. The State filed an appeal before the High Court. B Meanwhile two of the accused died. The High Court acquitted one of the remaining accused but reversed the acquittal of the appellants and con- ., victed and sentenced them under ss.148 and 302 read with 149 CPC. ~ Aggrieved, the appellants filed the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The High Court was right in holding that the prosecution succeeded in proving that owing to the two shots fired by the appellants, c the victim met with his death; and that the lacuna as pointed out by the D trial Court could not have in any way impaired the evidence of' the eye witnesses nor could have it affected the prosecution case. The contradic- tions which prusuaded the trial Court to disbelieve the eye witnesses related to their omissions to make certain statements before the Investigat- ing Officer, which they made before the Court. The omissions were so minor and insignificant that they did not amount to contrdictions at all. E [258·C; 257-G; 254-G-H; 255-A) 2.1. Both P.Ws. 1 and 2 were the most probable witnesses, as they were accompanying: the deceased at the material time and inspite of a ,. " detailed searching cross-examination nothing could be elicited by the defence to discredit or contradict them. [258-B] F 2.2. Besides, the F.I.R. that PW. 1 promptly lodged within half an hour of the incident, fully corroborates PW. 1. The evidence of the doctor who held autopsy and found two gunshot wounds on the person of the deceased also corroborates the evidence of the above two eye witnesses. (258-C] 3.1. The Investigating Officer was not present at the scene when the incident took place; and in the site plan had he even shown the place from which the shorts were allegedly fired after ascertaining the same from the eye witnesses, it could not have been admitted in evidence being hit by G Section 162 Cr.P.C. [255-H; 256-C) H 252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R. A 3.2. However, if in a given case the site plan is prepared by a B draftsman - and not by the Investigating Officer - entries therein regarding the place from where shots were fired or other.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.