LexSTATE OF U.P. versus SIKANDER ALI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c STATE OF U.P. v. SIKANDER ALI AND ORS. APRIL 3, I 998 [M.M. PUNCCHI, CJ., K.T. THOMAS AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] Criminal Law : Indian Panel Code, 1860 : Section 302-Murder-Two persons shot dead-FIR Lodged giving vivid details including names of the assailants and witness-Conviction by Trial Court-Sentenced to death-Reappreciation of Evidence-On appeal, sentence of death set-aside by High Court-Held : High Court should not have disturbed the finding of trial court's order-Conviction of the accused D restored-However, sentence of death commuted to imprisonment for life. Criminal Procedure 1973: Section 161-Delay of 24 days in examining the eye witness-IO's involvement in other duties relating to the upkeep of law and order-Held: E Lapse of the investigation should not prevent the court from accepting eye witnesses' evidence, if it is otherwise truthfal. The accused - respondents, were prosecuted under section 302 IPC. Fm was lodged by the eye witness [PWll with vivid details of the occurrence including full identity oUhe assailants and witness (PW21, within an hour F of occurrence. On the basis of the evidence of PWl and PW2 , the trial court convicted the accused-respondents under section 302 IPC and sentenced them to death. G On appeal, the High Court, reappreciating the evidence under Sections 391 and 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code acquitted the accused. Hence this appeal by State. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the evidence of PWl and PW2 should have been assessed on its own worth and further contended H that the appellate court has committed a grave error in knocking it off on 658 STATE OF lJ P v. SIKANDAR ALI [THOMAS. J] 659 the fra:,>ilc premise that the police officer tlitl not itlentify PW land PW2 at A the spot. Disposing of the a11peal, this Court HELD : I. I. The High Cou11 committed a serious error in using ttie omission of the field officer in noticing the kith and kin of the deceased in B the crowd for jettisoning the strong evidence of PWl and PW2. The trial court has rightly believed the testimony of PWJ and PW2 and the High Com1 should not haw tlisturbed that finding. [663-B) 1.2. Failure of the Police Oflicer to examine PW2 for twenty four days should not have heen used to drop his evidence out. Investigating officer said he was unable to question PW2 earlier as he himself was very much involved in other tluties relating to the U!lkeep of law and order. Thus, lapse of the investigation should not prevent the com1 from acce!'ting the eye witnesses evidence if it is otherwise truthful. [662-B) c D Ranbir and ors. v. State of P;111jab. AIR (1973) SC 1409 and Ganesh Bhawan Patel and another v. State of Maharas/ra. AIR (1979) SC 135, referretl. 2. In the instant case, there is no warrant for awarding death l'enalty to the accused. Ends of .iustice woultl be met by sentencing them each to E iml'risonment for life. [663-C) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDJCTION : Criminal Appeal No. 656 of 1990. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.4.90 of the Allahabad High Court F in Crl. A. No. 14 75 of 1988. Vishwajit Singh and A.S. Pundir for the Appellant. A.K. Ganguli (A.C.J and Dileep Tandon for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMAS, J. The place of occurrence of this double murder case is within the vicinity of the Sessions Court of Allahabad. Victims of the murder were inter se brothers-in-law and the alleged murderers were also like that. G One of the victims was facing trial in another murder case at the same H 660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 2 S.C.R. A Sessions Court and with his murder the said trial stood abated in that case. But the trial in the present case passed through all the stages and the sessions court convicted the two accused of murder and death penalty was imposed on them. The High Court of Allahabad on appeal acquitted them both. So the State of U.F. has come up with this appeal by special leave. B Murder for murder was the motivation for the occurrence as per the prosecution case. Synopsisi of this case is that a man named Pappu (who was the brother of first accused Sikandar Ali) was slain about a yea'r prior to the incident in this case, and police had challened Shamsher Singh alies Niley (one of the deceased) as an accused in that murder case along with some C others. That case was committed to the court of sessions and the trial was proceeding before the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.