LexKAILASH NATH versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 599 KAILASH NATH v. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1416 of 2008) DECEMBER 10, 2009' [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: A B ss. 3021149 and 3071149 - Eight persons involved in c causing death of one of the victims and injuring the other by gunshots - Conviction by· trial court - High . Court convicting only one accused who fired the shots and acquitting others giving them.benefit of doubt- Plea that since the High Court itself had opined false implication of other persons who had 0 not caused injuries, accused should also be acquitted - HELD: Merely because some of the accused who had not caused any injuries to the deceased or the witnesses have been given benefit of doubt would not mean that they were not present - It is only as a matter of abundant caution that the benefit has been given to them - Further, the manner and E time of attack-indicate that it could not be made by one or two persons - In any case, the High Court has, by way of abundant caution, given the benefit of doubt to those who had. not caused any injury, buf the appellant who is stated to have caused gun shot wounds to the deceased and to PW-1 cannot F be treated in the same manner - PW-1, the injured witness is also the wife of the deceased - She gave a long description of. the incident and despite her cross-examination she stood by story of shots fired by appellant - Statement of PW-5, the scribe of FIR, who had been sleeping on the ground floor of G the house a very shorl distance away, also merits acceptance - Besides, the time and place of incident and the weapon used have not been controverted by the defence - Even • Jud Recd. on 22.4.2010 599 H 600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R. A otherwise, medical evidence clearly supports the prosecurion version - As regards motive, the evidence reveals the e1_ent of animositv between the parties with murders and counter murders a,;d litigations going back to the 1960s - Furthe~ in a case of direct evidence, any uncertainty as to the motive B could not be said to be fatal to the prosecution story - Appeal dismissed - Criminal Law - Motive. [Para 5,8,9 and 11] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1416 of 2008. C From the Judgment & Order dated 24.82007 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 628 of 1981. K.V. Vishwanathan, Rishad Murtaza, M. Shoeb Alam, Anup 0 Kumar, Neha, Abhishek, M. Sahu, B. Sunita Rao for the Appellant. E F Ratnakar Dash, Shail Kumar Dwivedi, Manoj Dwivedi, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Vandana Mishra for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. The prosecution story is as under:- 1.1. Chhoti - P.W. 1, the complainant in the case was earlier married to Kallu Singh of village Tendwar, P.S. Maholi, District Sitapur and had three sons from him namely, Virendra, Surendra and Mahendra. Kallu Singh aforesaid had an uncle G named Ram Singh and Ram Singh had a son named Lallu Singh. Kallu Singh owned a house in village Tendwar. A short distance therefrom was the residential house of Vikram Singh -P.W. 5 nephew of Kallu Singh. Kallu Singh aforesaid was murdered about 12 years before the date of the present incident H and as per the prosecution story a partition had been effected KAILASH NATH v. STATE OF U.P. 601 between Kallu Singh and Lallu Singh with regard to the mango A grove in Khasra No. 165 which jointly belonged to them. The story further goes that Lallu Singh sold his portion of the grove to Kailash, the appellant herein, in the year 1970 as he was living with him at that time. It also appears that Lallu Singh did not pay any amount to Chhoti or the sons of Kallu Singh though .B they claimed a share in this property as well. It further appears that two years after the murder of Kallu Singh, Chhoti - P.W. started living with Deep Singh in her house as her second husband and it was Deep Singh who continued to look after the properties of Kallu Singh and his sons born from Chhoti. c Deep Singh, who also happened to be a distant cousin of Kallu Singh, had two brothers Vikram Singh and Lakhan Singh. In the year 1976, Kallu Singh's sons from Chhoti i.e. Virender, Surender and Mahender had filed a suit claiming the land covered by Khasra No. 165 which Lallu Singh had sold to D Kailash Nath appellant and it was Deep Singh who had pursued the matter in cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.