"People Of Rural Areas Have Much Better Eye-Sight Than That Of Town Folks": Allahabad HC Upholds Life Sentence Of 3 Murder Convicts

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) recently upheld the life sentence awarded to three murder convicts for killing one Kadhiley in April 2004. The Court also underscored that mere delay in lodging the FIR may not prove fatal in all cases.The bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav further stressed that the Court the criminal jurisprudence in India recognizes that the eyesight capacity of those who live in rural areas is far better than compared to the town folks. "Identification at night between known persons is acknowledged to be possible by voice, silhouette, shadow, and gait also," the Court said as it discarded the argument of the convicts that there was no light at the place of occurrence and therefore, there was no possibility of identification of the assailants in the instant case.The Court also noted that in case of delay in lodging of the FIR, the court had to seek an explanation for the delay and check the truthfulness of the version and if it is satisfied then the case of the prosecution cannot fall on this ground alone.The case in briefEssentially, the Court was dealing with an appeal filed by murder convicts [Sarafat, Noor Mohammad, and Ajay] against the Additional Sessions Judge/ Lakhimpur Kheri order and judgment wherein they were convicted for having murdered one Kadhiley with a sword by inflicting it on his neck.The FIR, in this case, was lodged at the instance of the Informant (Brahmadeen/son of the decease/PW1) on April 19, 2004, at 10:00 a.m., alleging therein that in the intervening night of 18-19 April 2004, at about 02:00 a.m., the convicts/appellants came in front of his house and started to drink water by plying handpump installed in front of his house, upon which his father (deceased Kadhiley) objected.Thereafter, all three persons (convicts/appellants) used abusive language against the deceased and when he objected to it, then, all three persons (convicts/appellants) brought the deceased towards the road. Seeing that, the son of the deceased (P.W.1/informant) and his sister Maina Devi (P.W.2) ran to save their father (deceased Kadhiley) but all three persons (convicts/appellants) murdered his father.The Trial court acquitted all three for the offences under Sections 504, 506 (2) I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, however, convicted and sentenced them under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment.Court's observations At the outset, the Court dealt with the objection raised by the accused that there had been an unexplained delay of 8 hours in lodging of the F.I.R. The Court observed that the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station (where the FIR was lodged) was 13 Kms and that the delay was sufficiently explained by the prosecution.The second objection was raised with regard to witnesses being interested witnesses in this case, however, the Court stressed that mere fact that relatives of the deceased are the only witnesses is not sufficient to discredit their cogent testimonies."There is no basis to discredit the presence of the three eye-witnesses i.e. P.W.1 (son of the deceased), P.W.2 (daughter of the deceased) and P.W.3 and nothing has been elicited out in the course of the cross-examination to doubt their presence. The nature of the injuries found to have been sustained by the deceased is consistent with the account furnished by the eye-witnesses," the Court said.Further, regarding the non-examination of independent witnesses in the case, the Court noted that merely because the prosecution did not examine any independent witness, would not necessarily lead to a conclusion that the accused was falsely implicated."The prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution, more particularly P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 and they are found to be trustworthy and reliable, non-examination of the independent witnesses is not fatal to the case of the prosecution," the Court opined.Now, regarding the argument made by the appellants that the availability of a source of light had not been mentioned in the written report submitted by the informant P.W.1, the Court observed thus:"...non-mentioning the availability of 'Dibbi' (a kerosene oil lamp) and torch by the informant P.W.1 in the written report is not fatal for the prosecution...the prosecution witnesses had pointed out the source of light in any manner on spot at the time of the incident...Even otherwise there may not have been any source of light is hardly considered relevant in view of the fact that the parties were known to each other from earlier. The criminal jurisprudence developed in this country recognizes that the eye sight capacity of those who live in rural areas is far better than compared to the town folks. Identification at night between known persons is acknowledged to be possible by voice, silhouette, shadow, and gait also. Therefore, this Court do not find much substance in the submission of the convicts/ appellants that ...

"People Of Rural Areas Have Much Better Eye-Sight Than That Of Town Folks": Allahabad HC Upholds Life Sentence Of 3 Murder Convicts

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

"People Of Rural Areas Have Much Better Eye-Sight Than That Of Town Folks": Allahabad HC Upholds Life Sentence Of 3 Murder Convicts

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers