LexSHAMBHOO versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962 Gond1.mog11la 101a.J)'O v. /'enumatcha A nondd Vijaya Vtnkatc· roma Iimma Jagepat!.fraju !~:!4 SUPREME COCR'f REPOitTS [l!lli2) SUPP. within the meaning- of the Act, then there can be no qncsti.or_i of giving them the benefit of the Act. In.our op1mon, there is no substan~e in the second pomt urged on belrnlf of the 1tppcllants. . In the r«sult the appeals fail and are clismi,~cd mth cost; one hearing foe. DosJ. • /!Jfi2 Appwl'J dismissal. t)HA.l\IBHOO v. STA 1l'J<; OF lJ'f'I'AR PRADl•~SH ( ,J. L. K.Al'IJR, !(. C. DAS GUP'!'A and RAGIIUBAR DAYAL, J,J.) (}1i11iinal Trial--Jfurd.er-- ·F'istol and cartridges recovered frvni ucr-usr:d--··f'ailur"- to send' to balli.~tic F.xperl-lf entails rPjr.ction of e.ye uJif-nes,w·.~- -1lpprt;ciation of ei.:idencc. 'I'he appellant ~\'idt su1nc others robbed Duila and t\VO others and d11r1rig the robber)' the appellant !hot at and killed Dull.a. \vi1h a pist ,l, Afier a chase the appellant was appre· hrnticd and the pistol a11d .some cartridges were recovered from bun. 1'he pistol and cartridges , .. ·ere not sent for· examination to the ballistic. expert. :\ number of eye "·it· nc.s~es y.·cre produced at the trial. 1"hc Sessions Judge ac· quitted the appellant but 011 appeal the lligh Cou1 t convicted him un<lcr ss. 302 and 1Y4 Indian Penal Code and sentenced hin1 to death. The appellant contended that the circum· stances of the case showed that the eye \Vitnesses could not be relied upon and that the failure to get the pistol and cartridges examined by a ballistic expert was a good ground for rejecting the e .. ·idenr.c of the eye \•;itnesses. Jleld, that though the prosecution would have done well to send the pistol and cartridges to the ballistic expert for his opinion, the omission to do so clid not furnish any reason to doubt or reject the e\·idence of the eye witnesses. '!"here .... ·:1.s no reason to think that the injuries of \Vhich Oulla died could not have been c:au;.ed by the pistol, on the cvntrarv the nature of the injuries \\'a5 \\·holly consistent \vlth the prosecution story that a pistol \\'as used. ' - ~ . -. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 335 Mohinder Singh v. The Stat•, [1950] S.C.R. 821, distin- gished. Held further that even if there was no apparent reason in ~ case to explain why witnesses were telling a lie against an accused pcrson, circumstances brought out by the evidence may show that in fact their evidence could not be safely relied upon. But in the present case there was no circumstance that justified any doubt about the truth of the prosecution case against the appellant. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 108of1961. Appeal from the judgment and order dated May, 11 1961 of the Allahabad High Court in Government Appeal No. 1492 of 1960. A. S. R. Chari and Udai Pratap Singh, for the appellant. G. C. Mathur and G.P. Lal, for the respondent. 1962. February 20. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAs GUPTA, J.-The appellant, Shambhoo, was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad for offences under sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code ands. 19(f} of the Indian Arms Act. Two other persons Altaf and Shaukat were also tried along with Shambhoo on charges under s.394 of the Indian Penal Code read with s.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that on November 3, 1959 Dulla and Ghasita, father and son and one Bhassu were on their way to Tahirpur Bazar for the purchase of bullocks. They had been to Cbandarpur Bazar for this purpose but had not made any purchases,-all the three were carrying money. Dulla had Rs.300/-, Ghasita had Rs.100/- and Bhassu had Rs.1051. Shortly before noon they reached Mauza Bhainsora. When they were near a tank about two or three furlongs from 1961 ShamblUJo •• Stott. r>f Uttar Pradesh· Das J. 1961 Shambhoo •• State of Utt4r Pradesh Das J, :~36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SbPP, Rhainsora theRc four persons, Shambhoo, Altaf, Sibt.e and Shaukat, of whom Shamhhoo ancl :-;ibte were armed with pistol and Shaukat and Altaf were armed wit.h lat.bis, c:\me out. of a wheat fi.,Jd nearby. 'Vben they demanded money frnrn Dulin, 13hassu and Gb1\Rita, Ghasita dcli\·crc·cl the money readily, but his father Dulla reRiste<l. At this Sham bhoo fired his pistol and shot Du Ila <it-ad. Shambhou then took out Its. :!00/- from Dulla's poekd, while Shauk>tt took away the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.