LexSTATE OF U. P. versus HARI PRASAD & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'~-··
··
_,--
. 588
"""-. /
STATE OF U. P.
v
HARI PRASAD & OTHERS
December 6, 1973
[M. H. BEG AND Y.V. CRANDRACHUD, JJ.]
·p.nal Codt-Murtla-Motlu for
murder.
There w;re disputes over land b:!ween the complain:mt and the p~rty or the
accused, all of wh~m were connected mter st . The deceased was a traditional pri .. t
ltlth of the .::>mphrnant as well as of the accused. All the accused were on fnendJY
terr•• ffitn the dec:ased. ~n the day or_thc occur_rcnce the deceased pri~t :~~~d
his mWt:r lf~re ;tay_,ng wr_th th9 compl~mant as hts_guests
The compla1aant311d
S(lm: m::nOI:rs of ht~ famtiY W!Ce sle~p,ng on one stde o r the terrace of his hoU>e
tloe pdest and few others were sleeping on another side, while the complairunr~
s:rvant and som: _others wore sleeping yet on another portion of the ternceortht
("
s~m• blu~e. W:ule one group or live accused committ<>d the murder of the scr·
v1nt of th: c>1l~ltinant, the ~:e:>nd S'?UP of fivo murdered the priest and caused
;njury to hi~ m'ther. The witnesses cl3!m:d that they identified the accused in the
1 is ill or the L3ntcrn which was alleged to be hanging by n pole four or live feet high.
The s "'~ ions Judse held thnt the 10 accused formed unlawful assembly for the
purpO~ of committing the murder of the complninont but by mistnke committed
the murder of the prtcst and the servant. Five or the accused belonging to the
0.
vill•ge ,.·ere •entenccd to death while the others were sentenced to imprisonment
for hfe.
The High Court acquiued oil the nccus.d.
Dismissing ihe app~al of the State 10 this Court
HELD : (I) The High Court w:u right in the view thot the occurrence tookpllre
u11.der darkness and that in the ab.l¢1lce of ony light none or the prosecution Wit·
neu:scould havcid<ntilied the culpr it~ and that the existence of the lantern was open
w Ct11VC doubt. If tflc lantern was burning justnenr the pl~cc where the priest
"'u sleeping it is difficult to hold that the murder was committed through on error
mistaking him to be the complainant. The accused had no moth·e to as.•ault the
priest an <I eauoe injury to his mother whid"t tended to show thnt they had not partt·
cipatcd in his murder. (593F; 592D und D )
(2) If the various eYe witnesses were able to Identify the occuscd in the light or
the laJitern the accused could have been able to identtfY the victim. (592E)
CRtMtNAL A r PtLLATE
Jurusmcrto~ ;
Criminal Appeal No.
215 of 1970.
Appeal by ~pedal leave from the judgmer.l and order dated
the 12th May, 1970 of the Allahabad High Court Luck now D~nch at
Lucknow in Criminal Appeal Nos. 35 and 36 of 1970.
0. P. Ra11a, for the appellant.
.A. K. GupJa, for the respondents.
The Judgment oF the Court was delivered by
•
CltANDRACHUD! J.-As criminal cases go, this is an interesting ca~
I
f
G
J"
11_1 the 6Cn~e that •t ofTen for solution a riddle of muny facets. ;..n
omce many unswers rcawnably come to mind, the accused would .11Pf'(:f
to he enmlcd to the benefit of that P<:rplcxity. The monsoon nrght rt
Au~u~t 27, 1968 was dark, so dark indeed that the Sessions c~u
wb1ch sentenced li\"e of the accu~ed to death and the r(maining fi\e 10
IL
' \ ... ______ . ~ ~
__ . _ _..---·~ ·p
·~
I
~.
U.P. STATE V. HAR! PRASAD (Chandrachud, J.)
589
~ A
life" imprisonment made a finding that "it is an admitted case that with-
out light it was not possible to identify the assailants". Witnesses
usually place torches in the hands of dacoits and though the motive
of the crime in this case was not burglary, a faint attempt was made
by some of the witnesses to show that, on occasions, a few of the accused
had flashed their torches at strategic stages. But that part of the case
is clearly unworthy of belief. And so, the main question in this appeal
B
is whether a lantern was burning at the scene of offence, lantern hang-
ing by a pole four or five feet high. Witnesses claim that they identified
the accused in the light of that lantern.
c
D
E
F
G
H
The case is riddled with these mysteries : Why did the accused
murd,:r Vishwanath Panda, their traditional family priest with whom
th~~ were 0;1 friendly terms and who, with his mother Birja, had come
on the 27th evecing to stay with the complainant Kanahaiya BtJX
Singh as a &uest? The amwcr made by the prosecution is that it is a
sorry case of mistaken identity; the accused wanted to murder the
complainant but mistook Vishwanath for him, both being of the ~;ame
colour,Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.