LexRAM NARAYAN versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 817 ' RAM NARAYAN A v. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No.1339 of 2005) APRIL 22, 2009 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: c ss.3021149, 3071149 and 4361149 - Prosecution of 9 persons - Acquittal by trial Court - Pending appeal three accused died - High Court convicting one of the remaining accused and acquitting the others - Held: Analysis made by High Court does not suffer from any infirmity - On the D contrary, judgment of trial Court was based on surmises and conjectures - High Court was justified in recording conviction. The appellant and eight others were prosecuted for commission of offences punishable u/ss.147, 148, 302/ E 149, 307/149 and 436/149 IPC in connection with a chain of three incidents taking place at different places. The prosecution case was that there was enmity between the complainant group and the accused party. On the day of incident at about 7.30 p.m., the accused, armed with bombs, a gun, a country made pistol, spear, pharsa and F lathis, went to the shop of 'S', the younger brother of the informant, and fired at him from the gun and the pistol and also threw bombs at him. 'S' anyhow saved himself and ran from that place. The accused then went to the - ... shop of the informant in search of '5', but no.t finding him G there, threw bombs and also fired some shots. One of the accused set fire to the shop of the informant. Then the accused went to the house of the informant and not finding 'S' there, threw a bomb at 'GP'. One of the - 817 H 818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 6 S.C.R. A accused also fired at him from the pistol. 'GP' died at the spot. The trial Court found that though incidents were reported to have taken place at 7 .30 p.m. but FIR was lodged belatedly at 8.30 p.m. with deliberation; that the semi-digested food found in the stomach of the deceased B suggested that he must hav~ died at 5.30 p.m. and not at 7.30 p.m.; and that regardi!J9 the source of light to be an electric bulb, report of Electricity Department was not on the record nor anybody from the. said Department was examined to prove the case. On these premises mainly, c the trial court doubted the prosecution case and acquitted all the accused_. The High Court, however, set aside the acquittal as regards the appellant and convicted him. Three of the accused having died pending appeal, their appeal abated. The High Court maintained acquittal as D regards the remaining five accused. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: The analysis made by the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity. On the contrary the trial court's E judgment proceeded on surmises and conjectures and was based on totally inappropriate appreciation of the evidence. Relevant aspects were not considered and irrelevant aspects were taken into account by the trial court Therefore, the High Court was justified in recording F conviction. [Para 13] (828-C-E] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1339 of 2005. From the Judgment & Order dated 4.4.2005 of the High G Court of Judicature at Allahabad U.P. in Government Criminal Appeal No. 1270 of 81. ~ - Abhisth Kumar, Archana Singh, Shantanu Krishna and Pankaj Sharma for the Appellants. H S.K. Dwivedi, Vivek Singh, Prashant Chaudhary, S.K. RAM NARAYAN v. STATE OF U.P. 819 Mishra and Praveen Swarup, for the Respondents. . A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .DR. ARIJIT PA~AYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by the then Ill B Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria in Sessions Trial No.347 of 1978. The accused persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149, Section 436 read with Section 149 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal C Code, 1860 (in short the "IPC'). Nine persons faced rial. All of them were charged under Section 307 read with section 149,436 read with section 149 and 302 read with section 149 l.P.C. Indra Jeet, Awadh Narain and Raj Banshi Tiwari were charged for rioting under section 147. l.P.C. whereas the rest D under section 148 l.P.C. The incident occurred on 7.7.1978 at about 7.30 P.M. at three places within Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria. The F.l.R. was lodged the same night at 8.20 P.M. by Brij Raj Tiwari (PW-1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.